Minimum Age To Buy Firearms?

[gowlerk 1,909]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Are you not able to see that it's about both?

Not when your focus is on guns and not other issues that cause much more deaths each year.

Derek V

Is this not a thread about firearms? Perhaps you need to start a "death prevention" thread.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Are you not able to see that it's about both?

Not when your focus is on guns and not other issues that cause much more deaths each year.

Derek V

Do you not think it's important to stop children from being killed in schools or do you feel that way about gun deaths in general? Yes, I'm laying out the "but the children" argument. I forget if you want zero changes or could get on board for limiting assault weapons just as we do machine guns.

The "we can't fix these other things so we shouldn't do anything about" is a terrible argument. For real, could you image trying to get absolutely ANYTHING done if that's how you approached problem solving.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

DJL

Do you not think it's important to stop children from being killed in schools or do you feel that way about gun deaths in general? Yes, I'm laying out the "but the children" argument. I forget if you want zero changes or could get on board for limiting assault weapons just as we do machine guns.

The "we can't fix these other things so we shouldn't do anything about" is a terrible argument. For real, could you image trying to get absolutely ANYTHING done if that's how you approached problem solving.

Would it help?

Would limiting assault weapons make any real difference?

I don't know, but we had the AWB for 10 years and it didn't seem to make any real difference.

Many of the mass shootings used other kinds of guns. Even Holmes in CO used a shotgun after the stupid drum mag on his AR jammed up.

The flip side of your 'we can't fix' argument is the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safer, even if it has no real effect."
Which is what many of the proposed 'solutions' (including arming teachers, FWIW) seem to be.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Are you not able to see that it's about both?

Not when your focus is on guns and not other issues that cause much more deaths each year.

Derek V

Considering the threat is titled: Minimum age to buy firearms, it would be odd to discuss ways to prevent drowning deaths in backyard pools.

Hence, claiming that in a topic specific thread not enough concern is given to other ways one can die, and therefor there is no reason to discuss death by bullet, is beyond asinine.

[DanG 1]

The difference between the gun deaths and car deaths is that guns are used the murder people. As in intentionally take their lives. The vast majority of automobile deaths are accidents.

Believe it or not people get more upset about murder than they do about accidental death.

- Dan G

[DJL 232]

wolfriverjoe

***
Do you not think it's important to stop children from being killed in schools or do you feel that way about gun deaths in general? Yes, I'm laying out the "but the children" argument. I forget if you want zero changes or could get on board for limiting assault weapons just as we do machine guns.

The "we can't fix these other things so we shouldn't do anything about" is a terrible argument. For real, could you image trying to get absolutely ANYTHING done if that's how you approached problem solving.

Would it help?

Would limiting assault weapons make any real difference?

I don't know, but we had the AWB for 10 years and it didn't seem to make any real difference.

Many of the mass shootings used other kinds of guns. Even Holmes in CO used a shotgun after the stupid drum mag on his AR jammed up.

The flip side of your 'we can't fix' argument is the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safer, even if it has no real effect."
Which is what many of the proposed 'solutions' (including arming teachers, FWIW) seem to be.

The AWB was enacted over a ridiculously short period and dismissed because it was viewed as having no discernible effect on gun crime. We've already disused the fact that assault weapons are not typically used in gun crimes.

But besides the very short period the data DOES show that there was a decrease in mass shootings during the ban.

• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents

• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents

• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents

There ARE other issues involved and you can purview the source here: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/feb/23/ted-deutch/did-mass-shootings-increase-200-percent-assault-we/

As for those "feel safer" fixes, I "feel" safer knowing that there are not automatic weapons on the streets. You know why? Because they're very tightly regulated and the data supports the fact that a well regulated system has resulted in an extremely small quantity of murders using that weapon. I will also "feel" safer for my nieces and nephews when the same restrictions are put on assault rifles.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[BIGUN 1,053]

The reason I didn't address your cry for the AWB in several other threads was because:

1. Even according to the article you posted - 'Advocates on both sides of the gun debate often point to the same report assessing the ban published in 2004 for the U.S. Justice Department. One key takeaway: The report said it was premature to make a definitive conclusion about the ban’s impact. It said there had been mixed results in reducing criminal use of the banned guns and magazines. If the ban were to be renewed, it might reduce the number of gunshot victims, but the effect would likely be "small at best and possibly too small for reliable measurement," the report said.'

2. The 113th Congress (the height of the Obama-Era) - An AWB was presented in the house. If failed. 15 Democrats crossed the aisle and voted against it. So, its been done - really didn't work well and when its brought up for vote - it doesn't pass.

3. I'm not sure if you know the real culprit in Mass Shootings. The handgun. Yup, a semi-automatic handgun. When an assult rifle is used - it garners a lot of media hype. It's popular to make that weapon the "demon" when its used. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

4. You know the State that has the MOST Mass shootings? The one with the most laws regarding gun ownership. Yup. It seems that particularly motivated individuals will not give two shits about a law and figure out a way to carry out their plan. https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

5. Offensive measures don't seem to be working. So, that's why several of us look to defensive measures.... as in the right to defend yourself and others. "We should also be talking about better securing our schools. Every child should feel safe at school without feeling like a prisoner. Many of the surviving students at Parkland have talked about the safety drills and procedures they'd been taught saving their lives yesterday. That's good -- but a shooter shouldn't have been able to get in in the first place."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/opinions/democrats-spare-me-your-hypocrisy-on-shooting-cupp/index.html

6. In the "PROPOSAL" I submitted; I get that the poll was "Boolean." However, what I find astounding is that each point was from the liberal perspective. EACH one. The first one alone was a direct theft from the Canadian model. Yet, an overwhelming number of (mostly SC liberals) voted against their own platforms - in its entirety. I spent a couple of days packaging up that proposal and yet, no one did another somewhat similar proposal of their own, nor made it less "Boolean." Mostly liberals voting against their own platforms left me with the realization that SC is just about arguing. Its really not about solutions - arguing is just the SC sport.

7. You mention AWB and, "As for those "feel safer" fixes, I "feel" safer knowing that there are not automatic weapons on the streets." Are you under the impression that AR-15's are sold as automatic weapons? I may be over-reading this; but its used in the same thread.

8. On that note - "feeling safer" ain't the same as "being safer." I feel much safer knowing that SkyRavn is safer with her weapon than without and I have no doubt that the Mama Bear will unsettle the most aggressive acts of violence if our child is threatened. And, I feel safer knowing that our schools have armed police officers with a known history of response. Someone goes to our schools with the intent of doing harm to children - they're going to get a response.

On a final note; I would "settle" for a 21 year-old law to purchase weapons. But, I don't think it would be effective. People who want to get around laws - will do just that.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[tkhayes 125]

California also has the largest population - so the odds of being in a mass shooting there are 1 in 2.5 million. Probably a lot LESS than in other states, but I do not have the data to compare.

stop talking about mass shootings and start talking about gun violence in general and the ways to prevent and reduce all of gun violence - mass shootings will likely follow.

[billvon 2,396]

>4. You know the State that has the MOST Mass shootings?

Probably the state with the highest population.

Skydive Arizona has one of the highest, if not the highest, fatality rate in the US. Does that mean Bryan Burke's approach is all wrong, and it's a very unsafe DZ? (Answer - no, it's just that there are a LOT of skydives there.)

Going by gun deaths per capita, the highest rates (per 100K people) are:

Alaska 19.59
Louisiana 19.15
Alabama 17.79
Mississippi 17.55

Alaska has the 5th laxest gun laws in the country per a report by the Deseret News. Mississippi is #2. Louisiana is #1.

The lowest (per 100K) are -


Connecticut 4.48
New York 4.39
Massachusetts 3.18
Hawaii 2.71

Hawaii has the 7th most stringent gun laws in the country. (Same source.) Massachusetts is #6. New York is #5. Connecticut is #2.

So there is a very strong correlation between the strength of gun laws and the rate of death by firearm in the US.

https://www.deseretnews.com/top/3427/0/The-10-states-with-the-most-restrictive-gun-laws.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

[timski 80]

RonD1120

Let the existing laws punish the bad people.

THIS IMO is a big part of our flawed society. "We" are WAY too nice to bad people.

Staying on topic, I would totally agree on the minimum age of 21. I personally grew up around ALL the firearms and learned gun safety from an early age. If your family teaches/trains you with firearms, then all the more better... ALL service members would be exempt however.

[gowlerk 1,909]

Quote

stop talking about mass shootings and start talking about gun violence in general and the ways to prevent and reduce all of gun violence - mass shootings will likely follow.

You must be still a bit of an outsider in America. I seldom hear native Americans expressing this obvious truth. They are too afraid of censure from their peers.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[BIGUN 1,053]

I understand what you and TK are saying about highest population. But, then when we throw in the X in 100,000 model it kinda dilutes that overall number. One can read that two ways... If I go from Oklahoma to California; I'm still 380 times more likely to get shot. No, I don't like that representation either because there's a population density factor also. I'm probably more likely to get shot in Oakland than I am in Hillsborough.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,053]

gowlerk

Quote

stop talking about mass shootings and start talking about gun violence in general and the ways to prevent and reduce all of gun violence - mass shootings will likely follow.

You must be still a bit of an outsider in America. I seldom hear native Americans expressing this obvious truth. They are too afraid of censure from their peers.

I feel relatively safe in saying that TK has always been a bit of an outsider. We may not always agree, but his perspective is always welcome.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DJL 232]

My response to most of those goes under the pretense that first, gun crime is one thing and mass shootings are another, next, that there is no reason to have large magazine capacity weapons with the Rem .223 and similar rounds available for civilian use other than that it's fun to blaze away on the range. Therefore they should be categorized and treated the same as machine guns. There are so many damn "Assault Rifles" (semi-auto, etc) out there, especially after the explosion in sales leading up to and following the AWB that any legislation needs to be permanent. No trial period, no 10 year expiration, permanent. I don't expect anyone to feel safer tomorrow, 100 years after the first restrictions placed on machine guns there are still 100's of thousands out there, it takes time.

Edit: In order to address GUN CRIME, I'll just point you at what TK is working on. And yes, approaching it from that angle supports both, because yes, I understand that hand guns, shotguns and other less powerful weapons are used.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[BIGUN 1,053]

Well said.There's got to be some middle ground to reach that respects both sides of the equation. I'll tell you the same thing I told TK in a PM:

I don't mind more gun legislation as long as it doesn't affect me.

Keith

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 1,623]

BIGUN

I'm probably more likely to get shot in Oakland than I am in Hillsborough.

And you're even more likely to get shot in Memphis, St. Louis, New Orleans or Little Rock

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Doubtful. We have reciprocity to carry with those states and I'm faster.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

That's assuming you don't hear or feel something long before you see anything.

[TriGirl 268]

billvon

Going by gun deaths per capita, the highest rates (per 100K people) are:

Alaska 19.59
Louisiana 19.15
Alabama 17.79
Mississippi 17.55

Alaska has the 5th laxest gun laws in the country per a report by the Deseret News. Mississippi is #2. Louisiana is #1.

I wrote in another thread last year when I lived in LA that about every other month the convention center across the street hosted a gun show. And that was only one of about 3 per month advertised on billboards.

Quote

The lowest (per 100K) are -


Connecticut 4.48
New York 4.39
Massachusetts 3.18
Hawaii 2.71

Hawaii has the 7th most stringent gun laws in the country. (Same source.) Massachusetts is #6. New York is #5. Connecticut is #2.

So there is a very strong correlation between the strength of gun laws and the rate of death by firearm in the US.

https://www.deseretnews.com/top/3427/0/The-10-states-with-the-most-restrictive-gun-laws.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

To those who want to say Illinois has tough laws but high gun crime: you can easily drive over a state line and purchase something to bring back into Illinois. I submit that Hawaii is a better example of effective restrictions, being a group of islands. To quote Harrison Ford, "It's an island, babe. If you didn't bring it here, you won't find it here."

The way you get legislation to work more effectively across CONUS is to implement similar restrictions across the board, regardless of state. Sure, we still have land borders that can be crossed more easily, but a larger area with the same restrictions would, IMHO, have a more realistic result. You can't say "but, Chicago!" with so many other legal sources within such close proximity.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[kallend 1,623]

TriGirl

To those who want to say Illinois has tough laws but high gun crime: you can easily drive over a state line and purchase something to bring back into Illinois. I submit that Hawaii is a better example of effective restrictions, being a group of islands. To quote Harrison Ford, "It's an island, babe. If you didn't bring it here, you won't find it here."

From my house in Chicago to Hammond, Indiana is 10.0 miles.

From some parts of Chicago you can step across the state line.

And since 2012-2014 time frame Illinois no longer has particularly tough gun laws, thanks to the SCOTUS. Shootings have gone way up since then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

BIGUN

I understand what you and TK are saying about highest population. But, then when we throw in the X in 100,000 model it kinda dilutes that overall number.

That's the point. Compared to total number, the rate, i.e., the number of gun deaths per 100K, is the more meaningful metric, allowing use to make meaningful, objective comparisons among locations of different population sizes.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

SkyDekker

That's assuming you don't hear or feel something long before you see anything.

Let him have his fantasies.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

TriGirl

You can't say "but, Chicago!" with so many other legal sources within such close proximity.

To be fair, they can't say, "but Chicago!", credibly, anyway, since Chicago's gun crime rate offers no suggestion that their gun restrictions have resulted in higher crime.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BIGUN 1,053]

jcd11235

***I understand what you and TK are saying about highest population. But, then when we throw in the X in 100,000 model it kinda dilutes that overall number.

That's the point. Compared to total number, the rate, i.e., the number of gun deaths per 100K, is the more meaningful metric, allowing use to make meaningful, objective comparisons among locations of different population sizes.

No shit. Did you read the whole thing or just the part you wanted to throw rocks at?

Fantasies... it was a tongue-in-cheek comment, hence the emoji. Stop sitting in the corner ready to pounce on any little thing. I've been on the liberal side of this issue for days. Try to keep up.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[jcd11235 0]

Dude, get over yourself.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!