That Didn't Take Long

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Would you still support it if a bookstore set an age for religious texts? Or a corner store set an age for candy? Or PP set an age for services? My problem with this is not the age so mach as it's not the stores place to decide.

Side note for 18-20 year old people: If you have the means, lawyer up. If not, wait for the class-action. I don't see how Wally World Dicks will win this.
Well, guns can kill people. That is a clear difference. It is similar to a legal age to drink so that 18-21-year-olds cannot just get in a car and kill someone in one night of being a careless and inexperienced drinker. I do support the age limit for drinking for the same reason. We should protect young people to the best of our ability from being in a situation where a decision carries lifelong negative consequences that could be the result of a momentary inability to cope with anger or depression or whatever.

I don't see whereas taking the initiative to do something like this creates the potential to create age limits for when you can buy religious books from a store or setting an age limit to buy candy from a store. Buying candy is not going to create the possibility of taking someone's life, from which there is no returning from.

In the study of PTSD within the military, there is a lot of research on the damaging effects of combat. Even in a combat situation, people do not kill other people without experience a spiritual response to that action.

PTSD was defined after world war one when machine guns and other advancements of weapons created the highest death toll of any war up to that point. The term shell-shocked was defined because of this and the study of PTSD has evolved since this time.

So when we are talking about changing the age limit for owning a gun, we are talking about something that does not have as many comparisons in retail. We are not talking about shoes, or toys, or candy. We are talking about an instrument that requires a significant amount of responsibility and maturity to own and use in a responsible way.

Therefore, I support this initiative that these businesses have taken to promote finding a solution that doesn't have to create political division. If we took more action, we would create less division. This kind of goes along with the saying that idleness is the devil playground. They did something and took action rather than making some kind of speech that brought attention to themselves for saying someone else should do something and I support them for this.
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
Well, guns can kill people. That is a clear difference. It is similar to a legal age to drink so that 18-21-year-olds cannot just get in a car and kill someone in one night of being a careless and inexperienced drinker. I do support the age limit for drinking for the same reason. We should protect young people to the best of our ability from being in a situation where a decision carries lifelong negative consequences that could be the result of a momentary inability to cope with anger or depression or whatever.

I don't see whereas taking the initiative to do something like this creates the potential to create age limits for when you can buy religious books from a store or setting an age limit to buy candy from a store. Buying candy is not going to create the possibility of taking someone's life, from which there is no returning from.

In the study of PTSD within the military, there is a lot of research on the damaging effects of combat. Even in a combat situation, people do not kill other people without experience a spiritual response to that action.

PTSD was defined after world war one when machine guns and other advancements of weapons created the highest death toll of any war up to that point. The term shell-shocked was defined because of this and the study of PTSD has evolved since this time.

So when we are talking about changing the age limit for owning a gun, we are talking about something that does not have as many comparisons in retail. We are not talking about shoes, or toys, or candy. We are talking about an instrument that requires a significant amount of responsibility and maturity to own and use in a responsible way.

Therefore, I support this initiative that these businesses have taken to promote finding a solution that doesn't have to create political division. If we took more action, we would create less division. This kind of goes along with the saying that idleness is the devil playground. They did something and took action rather than making some kind of speech that brought attention to themselves for saying someone else should do something and I support them for this.
OK. You support it. You made valid points, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of young (legal) gun owners do not kill people. Do you think that this policy will stand up in court?
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
OK. You support it. You made valid points, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of young (legal) gun owners do not kill people. Do you think that this policy will stand up in court?
Good question.

Alcohol sales are not limited by any establishment that I know of-- whatever the state's minimum age is, is fine. I cannot imagine a bar that would permit all ages but deny drinks to anyone under, say, 25 when the legal age is 21. That would be weird, and really bad for sales. But is it legal? I honestly dont know.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
1,709
Well, guns can kill people. That is a clear difference. It is similar to a legal age to drink so that 18-21-year-olds cannot just get in a car and kill someone in one night of being a careless and inexperienced drinker. I do support the age limit for drinking for the same reason. We should protect young people to the best of our ability from being in a situation where a decision carries lifelong negative consequences that could be the result of a momentary inability to cope with anger or depression or whatever.

I don't see whereas taking the initiative to do something like this creates the potential to create age limits for when you can buy religious books from a store or setting an age limit to buy candy from a store. Buying candy is not going to create the possibility of taking someone's life, from which there is no returning from.

In the study of PTSD within the military, there is a lot of research on the damaging effects of combat. Even in a combat situation, people do not kill other people without experience a spiritual response to that action.

PTSD was defined after world war one when machine guns and other advancements of weapons created the highest death toll of any war up to that point. The term shell-shocked was defined because of this and the study of PTSD has evolved since this time.

So when we are talking about changing the age limit for owning a gun, we are talking about something that does not have as many comparisons in retail. We are not talking about shoes, or toys, or candy. We are talking about an instrument that requires a significant amount of responsibility and maturity to own and use in a responsible way.

Therefore, I support this initiative that these businesses have taken to promote finding a solution that doesn't have to create political division. If we took more action, we would create less division. This kind of goes along with the saying that idleness is the devil playground. They did something and took action rather than making some kind of speech that brought attention to themselves for saying someone else should do something and I support them for this.
no people kill people not the gun. They use the gun for bad.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
Some States have laws against age discrimination. But they are designed to protect older people. Not young adults. There is no law that says anyone has to sell anyone a gun. So what Dick's and Wallmart should of done is just stop selling guns completely. Because hardly anyone is buying their guns at those stores. Of course, someone would of probably sued them anyway.

The point is really moot on the gun industry though. They enjoyed massive gun sales under Obama and engorged themselves. Now those sales are plummeting and they don't know what to do. I'm saying wait a little longer. What if we don't see a democrat president for another 12 years? The gun industry will probably be gone.
 
Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
OK. You support it. You made valid points, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of young (legal) gun owners do not kill people. Do you think that this policy will stand up in court?
Yes, I think you could make a strong case to support this in court. Honestly, what the vast majority of young gun owners who don't kill people think really doesn't matter to me because they are not being told that they can never buy a gun. We are just creating a standard that a certain level of maturity and responsibility is needed to own a gun, and due to the fact that people are demonstrating that they cannot handle this responsibility, it is reasonable to assume that this limit should be raised.

There is a reason that there is an age limit to run for president as well. We have already decided in the past that we should not let young people run the nation, and so in this case, they do not have a say. This does not make me feel any worse than when I take my son's games away from him and we need more opportunities to teach the youth in this country to have more respect for those of us that are older than them, period. Young people should have respect for the older generation and show respect for a decision like this. We do have a lot of very entitled young people.

There is such a thing as freedom, and there is such a thing as having to raise children. I think this falls into the category of having to raise children rather than suggesting that this is an attempt to take away freedom.
 
Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Why should my rights be taken away because of what one person did?
Why would postponing the age to buy a gun from 18-21 make a difference to you in any significant way when it is the same age you expect to be able to drink?
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
Why would postponing the age to buy a gun from 18-21 make a difference to you in any significant way when it is the same age you expect to be able to drink?
18-21 year olds can be responsible with weapons. It makes no sense to restrict everyone is that age group just because a few people are crazy. The cause of school shootings isn't being able to own a gun at 18-21, we should be addressing the real problems that cause people to want to shoot up a school.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
18-21 year olds can be responsible with weapons. It makes no sense to restrict everyone is that age group just because a few people are crazy. The cause of school shootings isn't being able to own a gun at 18-21, we should be addressing the real problems that cause people to want to shoot up a school.
We should. Which brings another question to the front: Have ANY of the school shooters been LEGAL Gun Owners?

That's the only question at the moment afaic.
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
18-21 year olds can be responsible with weapons. It makes no sense to restrict everyone is that age group just because a few people are crazy. The cause of school shootings isn't being able to own a gun at 18-21, we should be addressing the real problems that cause people to want to shoot up a school.
I take that back. :D

I also would like to know how many government officials/employees ignored the verifiable warnings. They are a significant threat to the lives of the community who employs them for failing to act, here. This is greater than questioning mental health reports-- because if no one is acting on these reports, it will happen again.
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
Yes, I think you could make a strong case to support this in court. Honestly, what the vast majority of young gun owners who don't kill people think really doesn't matter to me because they are not being told that they can never buy a gun. We are just creating a standard that a certain level of maturity and responsibility is needed to own a gun, and due to the fact that people are demonstrating that they cannot handle this responsibility, it is reasonable to assume that this limit should be raised.
That position is fine when decided by law. Not by a corporation.
There is a reason that there is an age limit to run for president as well. We have already decided in the past that we should not let young people run the nation, and so in this case, they do not have a say.
A law not a corporation decided that.
There is such a thing as freedom, and there is such a thing as having to raise children. I think this falls into the category of having to raise children rather than suggesting that this is an attempt to take away freedom.
Fine. But Wally World IS NOT raising my children.
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
Why would postponing the age to buy a gun from 18-21 make a difference to you in any significant way when it is the same age you expect to be able to drink?
That bothers me as well. You can die for your country but not responsible enough to drink. Mental gymnastics.....Governmental.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
I take that back. :D

I also would like to know how many government officials/employees ignored the verifiable warnings. They are a significant threat to the lives of the community who employs them for failing to act, here. This is greater than questioning mental health reports-- because if no one is acting on these reports, it will happen again.
Yes they were legal gun owners

There was no legal way ti follow up on those reports so ..
 

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
Yes they were legal gun owners

There was no legal way ti follow up on those reports so ..
I wasn't talking about store owners accessing the records of a minor-- but what sounds like possible neglect by the government mental health folks who released a kid with self inflicted cuts, who was talking about acquiring a gun and killing people. :/ There were no real records to access, anyway. So he has an adhd diagnosis, so what? Thats nothing these days. There is a disconnect there, obviously-- and there is is no nice way to put it because it is in every department. From what I have heard, the internal politics kill. Decent, above average workers are driven away due to overload and failure to achieve merit based promotion-- favoritism is how it seems to work-- or in this, case-- how it doesn't.
Hopefully, it is different in your state.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
The mental health laws in this country couldnt have held him either though.. deinstitutionalization. Its damn neat impossible to get someone held for more than a quick eval if they arent willing.

Its not about working conditions for mental health staff, or even law enforecement in this case, its about the law.

My aubt has attempted suicide three times this past year, we havent beem able to get her held more than a couple days at most because she spins a great tale, knows wjat to say and they have to - by law - release her if she doesnt appear to be an imminant danger. Theres a lot of holes in the mental health laws.
 
Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
18-21 year olds can be responsible with weapons. It makes no sense to restrict everyone is that age group just because a few people are crazy. The cause of school shootings isn't being able to own a gun at 18-21, we should be addressing the real problems that cause people to want to shoot up a school.
Right, but owning a gun is equivalent to establishing a legal drinking age because of the potential to create harm to another person. It is the same thing.

It is obviously not going to create a complete solution, but since the subject has come up, I do not believe the legal age to own a gun should be 18.

The reality is that society does place age limitations on achieving certain rites of passage. There is a reason we don't give driver's licenses to people when they are 13 too. A lot of these limitations are somewhat experimental, which is why we are lucky to have a system that does have the flexibility to change when an improvement to a preexisting standard can be found.

Therefore, I support changing the legal age to own a gun to 21. I think it places greater emphasis on the level of responsibility needed to own a gun. I also don't see whereas there is a whole lot of room to argue that an 18-year-old should have the ability to own a gun as opposed to waiting until he is 21.

When you narrow defending gun rights for the minority population of 18-20 year olds, you are in a difficult position to defend. We are talking about guns, not lotto tickets. Guns kill people, something like lotto tickets don't. How far can you argue that an 18-20 year old should own something that has the potential to kill someone?
 
Top