Raising the age to purchase/own

[TomNJVA]

Maybe what we need to do is raise the minimum age to 21 for purchasing and possessing a smart phone! My goodness, what would the little darlings do? Maybe read books, get a part-time job, join clubs, and interact more with their families and friends....horrors!

[Kvon2]

Maybe what we need to do is raise the minimum age to 21 for purchasing and possessing a smart phone! My goodness, what would the little darlings do? Maybe read books, get a part-time job, join clubs, and interact more with their families and friends....horrors!

I bet you used to walk to school and it was up hill both ways...

[Lohman446]

There's a reason that SOME people are willing to commit these terrible acts while the rest of us would never even think about it. My argument is we shouldn't be legislating for topics we don't scientifically understand

As most of us would never consider murder I'm not sure this argument works.

[Kvon2]

As most of us would never consider murder I'm not sure this argument works.

I think it supports it? Moral of the story is the majority of us would never take a life outside of a legally justifiable situation. Some will. We need to understand the difference in thought before we can fix it.

[fredvon4]

To a man, everyone I know...Teacher, store/shop owner, LEO, or Carry civilian...Never desires to be Rambo and shoot em all up...me included

As relates to age related laws .... too many things in many experiences as we grow and learn demand some scope of reference... This requires each of us to learn and base decisions on wisdom and experience....many NOT teachable... but rather livable experiences

A kid in a war torn environment or inner city gang violence area has a much different perspective by age 18 than some safe never a indecent suburban or rural community

Wife and I over 30 years lived in a wide variety of safe to very unsafe environments... raised our kids in these environments... their kids tho do not have the same perspective as grand parents or parents....cushy safe rural life in a relatively violence free community

I am sure we could make arguments IN GENERAL about age related "maturity" to grant or restrict certain Privileges or Rights...and truth is I think we should do this

I just detest the hypocrisy of many of our CURRENT privileges and Rights granted vs deniged

But that is experience and wisdom based..... see ---I was DRAFTED when age to drink was 18..... later BEFORE I was 21 THEY changed the LAW.... and PIST me off genuinely

I am fairly sure the first time I voted I had no real clue on the political implication of MY VOTE...For McGovern

[Lohman446]

I think it supports it? Moral of the story is the majority of us would never take a life outside of a legally justifiable situation. Some will. We need to understand the difference in thought before we can fix it.

I'm not 100% certain I follow your line of reasoning.

My argument is we shouldn't be legislating for topics we don't scientifically understand.

We don't understand fully why anyone commits rape, murder, or any number of violent crimes. Most of us would never consider it. Yet I don't think we question the moral authority and need to legislate it. I'm not certain how mass shootings are different. We don't understand it but we can most certainly legislate against it.

[JoeSixpack]

Remember that rich kid who killed some people drunk driving?
He got off with a defense called "affluenza" (No he didn't have the flu)
The gist of this defense was his family had so much money that he was isolated from his bad actions and could not tell right from wrong so he was not accountable for his actions.

Do you think a mass shooter could use that defense?.. What about the buying and ownership of guns.. If we raise the age to 21 because we deem enough (not all but enough) 18-20 year olds are not mature/developed enough to handle a firearm responsible could a case not be made that those that have disposable incomes over a certain level should also be prohibited?

Im not serious about this of course, The entire defense was ridiculous but it was also successful and can't help but wonder if it couldn't be applied to homicide with a firearm as easily as it was applied to homicide with a motor vehicle.

I've met 15 year olds more mature than 65 year olds.
Age restriction increase is a pointless "fix"

[Evan Thomas]

A mass shooter would have a very hard time using the "affluenza" defense successfully, not least because it wasn't in fact successful for the young man you're referring to. He was initially sentenced to 10 years probation, after which he fled the country with his mother, and he was eventually sentenced to two years in prison for "intoxication manslaughter." According to the most recent update I could find, his appeals failed, and he's still in prison, scheduled to be released sometime this year.

[Kvon2]

I'm not certain how mass shootings are different. We don't understand it but we can most certainly legislate against it.

then what legislation will solve it?

[horselips]

Since the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is defense of the state against a tyrant, any person old enough to enlist in the armed forces and bear arms, should, by definition be old enough to possess the same small arms as a civilian. I say small arms because heavy weapons like artillery and warships have traditionally been reserved to the standing services.

Sadly, it is in the nature of the totalitarian-progressive agenda to enhance the power of government over the individual whenever possible. And so the Left has put forth the proposition that all 18-20 year olds should be disqualified from firearms ownership. Even, and especially, the ones that didn't do anything wrong. They are simply guilty of their age. How many mass-casualty shootings have been committed by 18-20 year olds? Surprisingly, just 2. TWO. Reason enough to punish millions of innocent people.

A far better case can be made for changing the voting age to 21. Think of the votes cast by impressionable and misinformed youth! Think of the damage done to our country whenever the youth vote puts a bad candidate in office, or removes a good and experienced office holder. I'd rather see most 18-20 year olds armed to the teeth than standing in line at a polling place.

Seriously, if any legal adult is so unpredictable, so flaky, so unstable, so untrustworthy, so careless, or so deranged that he can't even be trusted with a gun, what is he doing running around loose? He should certainly be in custody.

[JoeSixpack]

@Evan it was successful enough to keep him out of prison initially for (iirc) quadruple vehicular homicide, while drunk and on pills.

10 years probation seems like a pretty sweet deal to me.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

Now that we've kicked the can around on the age and maturity of young adults
buying any weapons or taking their parents weapons. Let's talk about the responsibility that the parents of many of the school/other mass killings have.

All of the people that I know that have weapons and have children or young adults living at home with weapons have gun safes that can only be opened by the parent or parents.

Some of these mass killings at schools would not have happened if the parents had locked their weapons up. My father never let on to me that he kept his 45
semi-automatic pistol from WW2 locked in a safe in our home. It was only after I joined my home town Police Force(at 21 years old) as an AugLEO did I find out that he had his 45. This is what I'm talking about. The responsibility that parents have when owning weapons and have children or young adults living with them.

All of our weapons are locked in a safe except when we are carrying and/or have one on our nightstands. When anyone comes to my home, regardless of who they are, my weapons are in a safe or concealed. Only 2 of my neighbors know that we have guns as we both go to the range with these neighbors.
One of my neighbors has 2 young girls who they take to our range. They want their kids to understand safe gun ownership and handling guns. Their father locks up their guns when they get home. This is just plain old good sense and parenting.

[Lohman446]

then what legislation will solve it?

Non-invasive legislation is, by its nature, reactionary. Your initial statement involved legislation in regards to certain acts which I think may have been an error in communication. We can and do legislate against things we don't understand 100% such as murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

[Kvon2]

We can and do legislate against things we don't understand 100% such as murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

I think at the end of the day we both believe that knee jerk reactions, such as bans on features, magazines, etc... Are ineffective. You're right, we do legislate things we don't understand. I guess my argument is we SHOULD research and try to understand things BEFORE we legislate in order for it to be effective.

[RC20]

However, children today are very good at hiding what's really going on in their lives from their parents

On a side note I have to say I kept two significant things from my parents around age 8.

One was pretty silly, the other terribly serious. In that day and age they would not have believed the terribly serious one.