should the US prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing or owning large capacity guns ?

[Cecilie1200]

Illegals , Visa Overstayers , Terrorists in the country to kill Americans , Mentally Ill folks , Ex Felons , Pedo / NAMBLA types ...

And apparently you consider "young adults" to fall into the same category as illegals and terrorists. How charming.

 

[yidnar]

Do you have trouble with English?

Millions of people in this country are teens, and possess the Constitutional right to own firearms, whether or not they actually do own them. And you wish to take that right away from them. Please don't waste my time trying to deflect from the subject with your, "I'll pretend to be too stupid to know what you're saying, GOSH that's a clever debate tactic!" crap.

should a 12 yr old be able to own or purchase a fire arm ?

 

[Failzero]

And apparently you consider "young adults" to fall into the same category as illegals and terrorists. How charming.

The crazy ones who committed all the Mass Shootings over the last 35 + years yes

 

[yidnar]

Why can you be 18 to fight and die in a war but have to be 21 to have a beer?

logical argument

 

[Meister]

one thing most of these school shooters have in common [besides being crazy] is the vast majority have been under the age of 21 ... so the question is should the US ban large capacity firearms for people under the age of 21 ? would Americans that support the 2nd amendment agree to such a ban ? lets face the facts [and no i am not anti 2nd amend] there is a reason people under the age of 21 are not allowed to buy alcohol ... and that reason is when people that young imbibe they are statistically more likely to hurt themselves or others ... now i know that many of our military are under the age of 21 and handle automatic weapons but they are also under supervision from the chain of command and they were prepared through rigorous training ie..basic training ect .... the military does not hand a young man or woman an firearm the minute they are sworn into the armed forces ... they are trained first ... so should we ban large capacity firearms from non service members under the age of 21 ?

How many under 21 owned legally, a large capacity firearm that was used in a mass shooting?

The young people we need to worry about are going to get their weapons usually from an illegal source.
Why punish those that are law abiding who you would never have to worry about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

75% of the Mass Shooters under 21 years old in last 35 years were on SSRIs or had recently stopped taking them ( the other 25 % were on illegal drugs

Yes, and how many adults under the age of 21 take SSRIs and have no indication of violent, dangerous behavior? But you want to deprive them of their rights because of the actions of a small group of people who share surface similarities to them.

Why is it so hard for you to focus on the real causes of the crimes?

 

[Failzero]

Yes, and how many adults under the age of 21 take SSRIs and have no indication of violent, dangerous behavior? But you want to deprive them of their rights because of the actions of a small group of people who share surface similarities to them.

Why is it so hard for you to focus on the real causes of the crimes?

Metal illness should be 100% of the focus

 

[Cecilie1200]

understood .... but i'm making the point if they were allowed to own a revolver that i wouldnt have a problem with it ... that you can support a ban on large capacity guns for those under the age of 21 and still be pro 2nd amend ..

No, when you're suggesting limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, you're not pro-Second Amendment, no matter how much you try to justify it to yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Metal illness should be 100% of the focus

Not quite, although you're getting there. The problem is that you're wanting to veer off into big, generalized, one-size-fits-all, "let's just do SOMETHING!" conclusions.

There's mental problems, and then there's mental problems. The vast majority of people you would most likely consider to have "mental problems" - judging from your desire to strip rights away from those who take SSRIs - are not violent or dangerous in any way. Hell, one SSRI - Paxil - is prescribed for people with social anxiety, ie. pathological shyness.

Off the top of my head, I can only remember one mass shooter - the one in Las Vegas at the concert - who wasn't known to the police as being dangerously unstable well in advance of his shooting spree. If you want to deny guns specifically to people who've had the cops called on them multiple times for violent outbursts, or been investigated for posting threats of violence on social media, then we can talk. But as things stand, we have background checks and red-flag laws and yada yada, and they don't do a damned thing because no one's bothering to apply them.

How the hell did this person in Uvalde manage to pass a background check? It's obvious that the authorities knew he was a loose cannon. Why was none of this reported such that it showed up when he went in to buy the guns? And why the hell are we talking about even more new laws when we should be talking about why the laws we already have aren't being enforced?

 

[BluesLegend]

Why can you be 18 to fight and die in a war but have to be 21 to have a beer?

Because...government is dumb!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

one thing most of these school shooters have in common [besides being crazy] is the vast majority have been under the age of 21 ... so the question is should the US ban large capacity firearms for people under the age of 21 ? would Americans that support the 2nd amendment agree to such a ban ? lets face the facts [and no i am not anti 2nd amend] there is a reason people under the age of 21 are not allowed to buy alcohol ... and that reason is when people that young imbibe they are statistically more likely to hurt themselves or others ... now i know that many of our military are under the age of 21 and handle automatic weapons but they are also under supervision from the chain of command and they were prepared through rigorous training ie..basic training ect .... the military does not hand a young man or woman an firearm the minute they are sworn into the armed forces ... they are trained first ... so should we ban large capacity firearms from non service members under the age of 21 ?

No

Zero Fed Gun Laws

Period.

End Of Discussion

 

[Cecilie1200]

maybe the only solution is armed security in schools ...

I'd be in favor of it. I'd be even more in favor of it if my kids actually went to public school. People always scream, "OMG, you want our children going to school in FORTRESSES?!" Damned right. I'd have my kids escorted by 24-hour security in an armored car if I could get away with it. They're my KIDS. I'm not going to risk their lives to pretend the world is some pie-in-the-sky, Disney fairytale of safety.

 

[Cecilie1200]

should a 12 yr old be able to own or purchase a fire arm ?

No, but we're not talking about 12-year-olds, are we? Are you suggesting that 12-year-olds and 18-year-olds are remotely comparable? Exactly what point do you think you're making by bringing 12-year-olds up?

 

[Rigby5]

i know that such a ban may not prevent all mass school shootings but if it prevents 1 would it be justify said ban ?

Such a 21 year old ban would not change anything at all.
Did a ban on drugs reduce drug problems?
No, they increased it.
The problem of people committing school shooting is not a criminal problem because they are also trying to commit suicide.
So it is a mental health and school problem, both having nothing to do with guns.
Anyone of any age likely can get a gun if they are willing to commit murder and intend suicide.
And it is better if they do use guns instead of more lethal means, such as arson, toxins, explosives, etc.
With these other technologies, they do not even have to be there, so can do it repeatedly.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The crazy ones who committed all the Mass Shootings over the last 35 + years yes

Yes, but you're not trying to focus on them. You're just looking for a quick, one-size-fits-all approach, and hang the collateral damage because you don't want to expend the effort to think more specifically.

Let me put it this way. When I was 19, I was assaulted on the street by a man who, after he was arrested and further investigated, turned out to have killed at least two other people. I was fortunate enough to get away, and after that, I became a big fan of the right to own firearms. I wasn't taking SSRIs only because they hadn't been invented yet. I started taking them right after they came out. I have never had even the slightest sign of being violent or dangerous in any way, but according to you, I should have been denied my Constitutional right to protect myself. Not because of any indication that I was a danger, but because someone else might be a danger and happened to be the same age and be taking the same medication.

Yeah, I'm thinking you need to suck up your lazy thinking and drill down a little deeper. The age isn't the problem; the SSRIs aren't the problem. Think hard, and see if you can identify the actual problem, instead of just looking for a quick fix.

 

[JWBooth]

Perhaps tbe govt should make the age limit to join the military and kill people for politicians 21 years of age...?

35

 

[Rigby5]

Absolutely. Why not? Would not hurt my feelings if they could only buy standard length bolt action rifles with no greater than 5 shot capacity (unplugged) and same for shot guns. Let them learn to hunt and shoot the way I did.

Totally wrong.
The whole point of a democratic republic is equality of rights.
Once you start discriminating against certain groups, then you no longer have any sort of safeguard on rights in general.
We already illegally abuse felons by not letting them vote, etc., and that is already wrong. We should not start making things even worse.

Obviously school shooting are really suicides, so then can not be prevented by punitive laws.
If you want to stop them you have to make schools better and mental health care free.

Lets say that you do somehow prevent a suicidal or homicidal person from getting a gun?
That is not at all going to stop them, and they can just easily use arson, toxins, or explosives to not only kill more, but do it anonymously so they can keep doing it over and over.
So focusing on guns is foolish.

 

[Missourian]

Even outlawing black AR type weapons would be a big step forward.

The shooters want their weapons to look like the military real thing and wooden stocks won't do it for them.
Seriously, this is an American's need to kill, due to the culture of war that's been so popular since the end of WW2.

If wood gun stocks are forced on them, there will b no more enjoyment in killing than there was when they killed sonbirds with the first gun.

I hope this is parody.

 

[Failzero]

Yes, but you're not trying to focus on them. You're just looking for a quick, one-size-fits-all approach, and hang the collateral damage because you don't want to expend the effort to think more specifically.

Let me put it this way. When I was 19, I was assaulted on the street by a man who, after he was arrested and further investigated, turned out to have killed at least two other people. I was fortunate enough to get away, and after that, I became a big fan of the right to own firearms. I wasn't taking SSRIs only because they hadn't been invented yet. I started taking them right after they came out. I have never had even the slightest sign of being violent or dangerous in any way, but according to you, I should have been denied my Constitutional right to protect myself. Not because of any indication that I was a danger, but because someone else might be a danger and happened to be the same age and be taking the same medication.

Yeah, I'm thinking you need to suck up your lazy thinking and drill down a little deeper. The age isn't the problem; the SSRIs aren't the problem. Think hard, and see if you can identify the actual problem, instead of just looking for a quick fix.

Quicker fix , Drug Test for All Firearm purchases and if your on SSRIs you should have two shrinks vouch for you to clear that hurdle

 

[Rigby5]

should a 12 yr old be able to own or purchase a fire arm ?

The tradition is the rifle or shotgun over the mantle, and it has saved lots of lives.
Already a 12 year old could easily kill people.
They could use gasoline and arson, toxins, etc.