Almost never talked about: the fact that many gun related crimes are committed by someone under 21

[CoalTrain49]

I think it's unethical and immoral to ask people to put their lives on the line in service of a society that is denying them the full rights of a citizen.

Who's asking?

The draft ended in 1973.

Enlistment these days is 100% voluntary.

Any comparison to an 19 year old civilian with an AR-15 in his closet and a 19 YO in the military who may be issued an M-4 just isn't worthy of a discussion. For starters, M-4's aren't owned by the troop, they're issued as needed and stored in a secure facility under lock and key when they aren't needed. The military decides when you need them and when you don't.

Not anyone can get into the military these days. The requirements are a bit more stringent than filling out a 4473. A NICS check won't get you into the military.

 

[rizbunk77]

So-called assault weapons are used in less than .0175% (if I’m correct) of homicides. Handguns are used in a most gun-related homicide and crimes. In most places you have to be 18 years to purchase a rifle or shotgun and 21 years old to purchase a handgun.

Almost all of the gun-related homicides in the United States are not mass-shootings, school shootings, workplace shootings, or terrorism related. Those shootings get the spotlight but they are far rarer than your everyday gun related homicide such as robbery, murder, assault, domestic, gang related, and others which make up the majority of your gun related homocides.

For many of the gun related crimes in large cities like Baltimore, Detroit, New York, and Chicago it is gang related and what no one talks about is the fact that most of the perpetrators are under 21 years old. You have many 13-19 year olds comitting murders with guns. Some are younger and some are older. But a vast majority are under 21.

What does that mean?

It means that these perpetrators can’t even own or purchase a handgun.

It means all of these gun laws, the so-called “gun show loophole”, background checks, background check improvements, raising the age to 21 for rifles, mental health checks, and all of the rest of them mean nothing since not only are these perpetrators already obtaining these weapons illegally through straw purchases, backs of car trunks in alleys, from burglaries, robberies, etc, they couldn’t even purchase them or own them in the first place. They aren’t going to walk into a gun store and ask to purchase a pistol. If a 13 year old walked into a Cabelas and attempted to purchase a pistol, I’m sure the employee would turn them away and most likely notify the authorities.


I’d like one commentator on a major news stations say:

“All of these proposed gun laws will have no effect on a large percentage of the gun related homicides because not only are these perpetrators obtaining these guns illegally in the first place, they couldn’t own or purchase them legally since they are not 21 years old and are underage. So they would never go through a mental health check, background check, or any other type of check because as soon as they attempted to buy one legally the salesperson would stop them since they are not old enough to purchase or own a handgun and thus the sale would be stopped and no background checks of any kind would be completed or even attempted!

So no matter what ‘checks’ you make, they aren’t going to go through them.”


Handgun purchase and background check laws aren’t going to affect someone who isn’t allowed to purchase a handgun in the first place but is intent on getting one.

The age to own a handgun could be 50 years old and the homicide rate in Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore would not change at all.

Right,
but if another school gets shot up with twenty or so teenagers getting buried it is not going to matter.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Right,
but if another school gets shot up with twenty or so teenagers getting buried it is not going to matter.

To your point not many people are worried about the statistics. Statics don't march in the street and get an audience with the POTUS. You can quote statistics all day long and not very many people are going to listen. What they do listen to is an endless cycle of mass shootings in the media. Now they're even listening to the children who are the targets of mass shooters. That's a pretty powerful message for most people, even if you don't have children.

We aren't going to reverse this endless cycle of mass shootings and the media is going to continue to dwell on it because it's sensational news and makes them money. A bill to increase the age limit to 21 for AR's isn't any different than Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that set the age limit for pistols to 21. That happened a few years after Kennedy was killed but it didn't stop President Reagan from being shot with a handgun. A bill to restrict people below 21 to purchase firearms isn't going to accomplish anything except help pols in their election campaigns.

Where was the public out cry when the OCC bill was passed. There wasn't any that I can remember. Just like the OCC bill that congress passed, an increased age limit for all firearms will be introduced in congress and it will pass. It may take a few years and a few more shootings but it will pass. If you think that's bad wait until you get a UBC. I've been living with one for 3 years now and I can tell you that a 21 age limit doesn't even register on the gun control meter compared to that.

 

[toivo]

I think it's unethical and immoral to ask people to put their lives on the line in service of a society that is denying them the full rights of a citizen.

Who's asking?

The draft ended in 1973.

Enlistment these days is 100% voluntary.

Any comparison to an 19 year old civilian with an AR-15 in his closet and a 19 YO in the military who may be issued an M-4 just isn't worthy of a discussion. For starters, M-4's aren't owned by the troop, they're issued as needed and stored in a secure facility under lock and key when they aren't needed. The military decides when you need them and when you don't.

Not anyone can get into the military these days. The requirements are a bit more stringent than filling out a 4473. A NICS check won't get you into the military.

All of which has nothing to do with my point. Yes, the military is voluntary. Yes, the military carefully controls access to weapons. The problem is that we as a society are saying that 18 is old enough to decide whether to lay your life down for your country, but it's too young to purchase and responsibly use a firearm. Either they're adults or they're children. Which is it? If they're children, we shouldn't be letting them fight our wars for us. If they're adults, we shouldn't be telling them they're too young for X, Y, or Z.

 

[plinky]

One Facebook "legal expert" (who is every bit as qualified as myself) said that the GCA of '68 allows states to set an age for purchases as long as it is at least the federal minimum. I haven't verified this but either way, it seems a potential problem considering this is a well protected Constitutional right, and now incorporated to the states.

He went further and said it is not an age discrimination because everyone will eventually reach the age of 21 (not really true). If that was sound, the minimum age could be set at any number that we assume most people will live to and 50 years old would not be a stretch at all. Clearly an infringement.

The question is, at what age do we generally consider people to be responsible for their actions with exceptions for those who prove themselves irresponsible? It should be consistent, at least regarding rights and legal responsibilities as opposed to privileges.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yes, that's exactly what it is. It includes all events of multiple homicides to include that number, events where people were injured, etc. They make it sound like Parkland is a daily event, when it's really just Tuesday in South Chicago.

 

[CoalTrain49]

All of which has nothing to do with my point. Yes, the military is voluntary. Yes, the military carefully controls access to weapons. The problem is that we as a society are saying that 18 is old enough to decide whether to lay your life down for your country, but it's too young to purchase and responsibly use a firearm. Either they're adults or they're children. Which is it? If they're children, we shouldn't be letting them fight our wars for us. If they're adults, we shouldn't be telling them they're too young for X, Y, or Z.

Why not. There are a number of states where the legal age to drink is 21. Because they are old enough at 18 to enlist should they also be old enough to drink at 18? That makes no sense to me and lots of people will agree with me.

You are equating a persons qualifications to purchase a firearm with the qualifications to enlist in the military. People in the military are not civilians. Two very different things as far as I'm concerned. Roughly 30% of people in the 17-24 age group would not be eligible for military service because....

• 10% have a criminal record that disqualifies them from service.
• 30% have a history of drug use that would disqualify them.
• 25% lack a high school diploma.
• 23% could not pass the ASVAB test.

So if you want to equate the two then 18 year olds who purchase firearms should pass the same tests the military requires to enlist.

You won't get many takers.

 

[Sistema1927]

Nobody under the age of 21 was able to vote prior to 1971. There were plenty of young men, ages 17-20 (and some younger), who fought and died in a number of wars prior to that time. Many of them voluntarily enlisted. The youngest Medal of Honor recipient was only 11, Willie Johnston. Jack Lucas entered the Marines at age 14, and received the MOH for action when he was 17.

Many of us possessed firearms at an early age. I had 24 hour unfettered access to guns and ammunition, as did many of my classmates. None of us shot up our schools or made mayhem with our guns.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Nobody under the age of 21 was able to vote prior to 1971. There were plenty of young men, ages 17-20 (and some younger), who fought and died in a number of wars prior to that time. Many of them voluntarily enlisted. The youngest Medal of Honor recipient was only 11, Willie Johnston. Jack Lucas entered the Marines at age 14, and received the MOH for action when he was 17.

Many of us possessed firearms at an early age. I had 24 hour unfettered access to guns and ammunition, as did many of my classmates. None of us shot up our schools or made mayhem with our guns.

Which proves one thing. Lots of people who are 18 these days aren't mature enough to purchase a firearm. Times change.

 

[Sistema1927]

Which proves one thing. Lots of people who are 18 these days aren't mature enough to purchase a firearm. Times change.

No, it proves that it is possible for young people under 21 to be responsible. We need to ask ourselves what we have allowed in our society that has created the problems that we now have.

It isn't the firearms, but rather a number of other factors. Maybe it is time for us to take back our nation from the forces that want to destroy it.

It isn't politically correct to say so, but a society that murders children in the womb, glorifies violence in entertainment, and can't even figure out which bathroom to use is simply reaping what it has sown. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" - Proverbs 14:34, ESV

 

[Jim Watson]

The Child Protectors are in action.
Shooting - being treated as an AD with jock showing off his fawty - at Huffman high school in Birmingham with metal detectors turned off.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ere-girl-was-shot-dead-superintendent-n854986

NYPD pulling the last real cop out of school. But don't worry, they will have unarmed "school safety agents", and the police will "visit schools while patrolling the neighborhood.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ere-girl-was-shot-dead-superintendent-n854986

The "educators" and narrow gauge politicians talk a good game but when it comes to committing resources, they aren't so hot.

 

[Old Dog]

This thread's title itself:
Almost never talked about: the fact that many gun related crimes are committed by someone under 21
On an internet firearms firearms forum, simply supports the anti-gun faction's proposition that citizens under age 21 should not be allowed to purchase long guns.

And yet, several here just want to argue about 18 or 19 year old kids in the military being mature enough to use these weapons.

Sheesh. What forum is this again?

 

[yokel]

No, it proves that it is possible for young people under 21 to be responsible. We need to ask ourselves what we have allowed in our society that has created the problems that we now have.

It isn't the firearms, but rather a number of other factors. Maybe it is time for us to take back our nation from the forces that want to destroy it.

It isn't politically correct to say so, but a society that murders children in the womb, glorifies violence in entertainment, and can't even figure out which bathroom to use is simply reaping what it has sown. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" - Proverbs 14:34, ESV

Many people will come forward after an episode like Parkland, and immediately start to bleat "gun control, gun control, gun control!" Why? Because that is their favored response for violence. The way to deal with violence, the way to deal with crime, the way to deal with the challenge that we face as a people, the consequences of bad behavior is to control instruments. To control "things," because "things" are causing the problem. This is madness; but it's a madness that's deeply-rooted in a certain way of understanding who we are as people, and what we are as human beings.

I think we have to realize something. We are not just faced with an agenda that aims to deprive us of the means to defend ourselves. That effort to deprive us of the means to defend ourselves is but one part of a comprehensive agenda to deprive us, not just of the right to keep and bear arms, but of all our rights.

What we see coming forward is actually an agenda that undermines our liberty by undermining not just our sense that freedom is important; no. It's even worse than that. What they are undermining is our sense that we are capable of freedom, that we have the capacity to live as free people.

Because let's be frank about it. Don't kid yourself. If all of you were convinced that freedom meant anarchy, that freedom meant violence, that freedom meant streets running with blood, property that could not be secured, that the consequence of freedom was going to be that we set ourselves against one another with no constraint and no control—none of us would be in favor of such freedom. We would, all of us, be willing to surrender liberty, if it meant we had to live in that kind of hell. And you know it.

So if someone comes along and convinces us that we are incapable of disciplining and controlling ourselves, that concept, once it is inculcated, becomes the enemy of freedom, because we lose the confidence to claim our rights. We lose the confidence to believe that those rights are compatible with civilization, with decency, with peace, with order, with all the things that, in fact, we value. We do not wish to live in neighborhoods filled with fear; we do not wish to live with schools where our children butcher one another. And so if we can be convinced that we are such people that, trusted with our liberties, that will be the consequence, guess what's gonna happen? We will abandon liberty. And this is what's happening.

 

[DannyLandrum]

Fact: 18, 19, and 20 year olds, as full fledged adults, have a RIGHT to defend themselves with some very-effective tool; i.e. a gun. Raising the age for long guns to 21 makes no sense, and seems highly violative of their rights to me - particularly single shots, levers, and pumps, and particularly shotguns. The FL law was rushed through by the media and it shows - it's a horrible law that violates rights left and right.

And to say that the military age is 18 but that's very different because their firearm use in the military is limited - is missing the point entirely.

Forget ALL about using guns in the military - that's got nothing to do with nothing. But what is relevant is that we still have the draft, meaning you can be forced to joint the military and fight. With rights come responsibilities and with responsibilities should come rights. It's one of many factors which shows that one is an adult, we have decided as a society - so you can't carve out exceptions that deprive young adults of their rights just because the liberals caused a bunch of child deaths by their long history of constant obstruction of common sense school security measures (like arming teachers).

 

[toivo]

Why not. There are a number of states where the legal age to drink is 21. Because they are old enough at 18 to enlist should they also be old enough to drink at 18?

Yes. They should. If they're old enough to fight and die for their country, they're old enough to drink. If they're not, it's because we're telling them that they need to be protected from themselves because they lack mature judgement. The same standard should be applied to the decision to join the military.

You are equating a persons qualifications to purchase a firearm with the qualifications to enlist in the military.

No I'm not. The military can pile all the additional qualifiers that they want on there. It doesn't change the bottom line fact that we are letting 18-year-olds make the high-stakes life-changing (and possibly life-ending) decision to join the military, but we make them wait three more years to smoke a cigarette, have a drink, or buy a gun. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Hummer70]

In 1979 I moved to Pike County, Pa, little place called Milford, Pa, 600 people and I think 17,000 in the whole county. I was amazed to learn there had not been a murder committed in that county since 1946 and the built a scaffold and hung the killer on the courthouse lawn. I was up there about 18 months back and the place is a mad house with another 50,000 moved into the county and commute to NYC and crime is way up. That is the place about four years back where this guy opened fire at the State Police Barracks killing one trooper and wounding another. But then again they don't hang the perps on the court house lawn any more. Handguns were somewhat rare there but there were rifles up the yeng yang.

I was keeping up with it and I got a call from a buddy who was on the emergency services commission or some such name and they were thinking of ways to get the shooter who had gone into the woods and my buddy called me asking how I thought he could be found. I thought about it for a couple hours and emailed him how I would do it. He took it to the command center and the state police shot it down. Get this............ they were afraid doing such would hurt their image! ! ! ! ! !! Go figure ! ! ! !!

 

[CoalTrain49]

Yes. They should. If they're old enough to fight and die for their country, they're old enough to drink. If they're not, it's because we're telling them that they need to be protected from themselves because they lack mature judgement. The same standard should be applied to the decision to join the military.


No I'm not. The military can pile all the additional qualifiers that they want on there. It doesn't change the bottom line fact that we are letting 18-year-olds make the high-stakes life-changing (and possibly life-ending) decision to join the military, but we make them wait three more years to smoke a cigarette, have a drink, or buy a gun. That makes no sense to me.

Yes. They should. If they're old enough to fight and die for their country, they're old enough to drink. If they're not, it's because we're telling them that they need to be protected from themselves because they lack mature judgement. The same standard should be applied to the decision to join the military.

I guess I'm missing something here. What exactly does the drinking age as a civilian have to do with being in the military. You can drink in the military. When you're in the military the laws for you change. You are no longer under civilian rule, you're under the UCMJ.

Think of it like being an American citizen in a foreign country because that's what it's like. If you happen to be in a country where alcohol is illegal then you better not drink because you can be arrested. A military base in the US is like a foreign country. Case in point, in a state where you need to be 21 to drink that doesn't apply to a military base in that state. It isn't part of the local gov't. even in a foreign country. I know, I was on one of those bases. The military has it's rules and the state has theirs.

Why do you think they should be the same? They never have been and never will be.

You don't live in a state that has a 21 age limit. So how is it you can tell the people that live in one how to legislate? Take care of your laws in NY and let the people in their respective states take care of theirs. That's called a republic.

I'm not a supporter of raising the age limit in congress, however. States have a right to do whatever they want without the feds getting involved.

 

[wahsben]

 

[toivo]

I guess I'm missing something here. What exactly does the drinking age as a civilian have to do with being in the military. You can drink in the military. When you're in the military the laws for you change. You are no longer under civilian rule, you're under the UCMJ.

[...]

Why do you think they should be the same? They never have been and never will be.

You don't live in a state that has a 21 age limit. So how is it you can tell the people that live in one how to legislate? Take care of your laws in NY and let the people in their respective states take care of theirs. That's called a republic.

It's simple. I'm not talking about what is. I'm talking about what should be. The laws about drinking in the military aren't relevant. I'm talking about how the whole society views 18 to 20-year-olds. We treat them like adults for military service and like children for other things. That's not right, in my opinion. It takes unfair advantage of them. That's just my opinion, and you have every right to disagree. I think that it's wrong from an ethical point of view.

My state doesn't have a 21 age limit for purchasing firearms. But you can bet that if the Democrats ever get a majority in the State Senate (they already own the Assembly), that will change faster than you can say "Andrew Cuomo."

Case in point, in a state where you need to be 21 to drink that doesn't apply to a military base in that state.

That's no longer 100% true -- it's a little more complicated than that now.

https://www.thebalance.com/military-drinking-age-3354195

Anyway, I respect your opinion, but I still don't agree with you. I do appreciate that we've been able to keep the discussion pretty civil, because this is The High Road, after all.

 

[plinky]

As much as I agree with Liz W, we all know that most criminal gun use is not mass shootings. They are the exception. She certainly takes the wind out of such laws as an anti-mass shooting measure though, if we were thinking logically.

For a clear picture of the potential benefit of raising the gun buying age, we need to know how many total criminal users obtained guns through legal channels in the 18-20 age group. Of course that's not the end of it. Alternate gun sources are available for the dedicated criminal which will lessen any effectiveness of the law. These channels are already in place and will surely see MORE use under the new laws. With the target age group already restricted to buying long guns and these being uncommon in crime, the potential has to be fairly limited.

While efficacy is not the only concern regarding proposed changes, it would be useful to know. In fact we need to hammer that efficacy be one of the prerequisites of any gun restrictions. That alone should kill an AWB.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Anyway, I respect your opinion, but I still don't agree with you. I do appreciate that we've been able to keep the discussion pretty civil, because this is The High Road, after all.

 

[JSH1]

Until we can control our border (MS13, and other criminals coming over), have tougher sentencing and not provide cable, personal computers, meals, fitness centers, climate controlled jail cells and the like to our criminals, and have our families strive to have a greater moral character in the home we will continue to have gang on gang violence, armed robberies, etc.

MS-13 is home grown, founded in Los Angeles back in the 80's. Controlling our borders will not prevent drug violence. Where there is a market there will be a supplier. What we need to do is admit that our decades long prohibition on drugs has failed just as our previous prohibition of alcohol failed. We need to stop treating drug use as a criminal problem and start treating it as a medical problem. When that happens a lot of the crime that comes with drug trafficking will go away. Walgreens and Rite Aid don't shoot it out on the corner over turf.

Take away the illegal drug trade and a lot of the violence goes away. When the violence goes away the call to ban guns goes away. Until the violence goes away good meaning people are going to attempt to limit that violence by banning or restricting the tools used in the violence (guns). The NFA 1934 came directly from the violence CAUSED by prohibition of alcohol. So it has been for every major gun control legislation since.

 

[Aim1]

MS-13 is home grown, founded in Los Angeles back in the 80's. Controlling our borders will not prevent drug violence. Where there is a market there will be a supplier. What we need to do is admit that our decades long prohibition on drugs has failed just as our previous prohibition of alcohol failed. We need to stop treating drug use as a criminal problem and start treating it as a medical problem. When that happens a lot of the crime that comes with drug trafficking will go away. Walgreens and Rite Aid don't shoot it out on the corner over turf.

Take away the illegal drug trade and a lot of the violence goes away. When the violence goes away the call to ban guns goes away. Until the violence goes away good meaning people are going to attempt to limit that violence by banning or restricting the tools used in the violence (guns). The NFA 1934 came directly from the violence CAUSED by prohibition of alcohol. So it has been for every major gun control legislation since.

Controlling the borders will certainly help. It definitely won't stop the drug problem but it will make it harder to get the drugs into the country.


Not controlling the borders is like saying locking your doors won't prevent a burglar from entering.

 

[JSH1]

Controlling the borders will certainly help. It definitely won't stop the drug problem but it will make it harder to get the drugs into the country.


Not controlling the borders is like saying locking your doors won't prevent a burglar from entering.

The US border is 19,937 miles. Trying to control drug trafficking by cutting the supply is just playing Wack-A-Mole. Tighten one area and the traffic flows to another. Seal off the US-Mexico border completely and traffic flows to coasts. There is always a taller ladder, deeper tunnel, or longer boat trip.

The USA already wastes far too much trying to enforce and incarcerated our way out of a problem that shouldn’t be a problem.

Again. Prohibition causes violence and the violence leads to gun control.

 

[Aim1]

Didn't realize that since 2009 only 2 shooters with rifles were under 21.


More people in the media should put that out.