Heated arguement about concealed carry

[TexasRifleman]

The military allows no one unsupervised access to weapons. Especially 18 year olds. They dictate what weapons, when they are allowed and issued, how they are used, and they always supervise.

I suggest you speak with some of our young men deployed in Afghanistan about that, I think you will find you're completely wrong.

I was tempted to go through here and tear into those saying that someone 18 years of age isn't mature enough to carry a handgun but I see that's being done already.

That someone is old enough to go fight a war on foreign soil but not buy a beer or have a pistol will never make sense to me.

I suggest some folks just stay out of threads like this if your only comment is to fret about the age issue.

 

[gbw]

As to military personnel carrying. I was given my first M-14 at 17. M-16 at 18. At 18 1/2 I was not supervised, I WAS the supervisor (squad leader).

Exactly. I know you didn't mean to, but you've made my point.

You were not allowed weapons, unsupervised. It took a year and a half, but finally you'd proven your maturity and earned your position as a supervisor of other 18 year olds with guns.

Like most with much contact with them, I maintain that the huge majority of 18 year olds (and 19, 20 minimum) have no business with weapons unless they are supervised and controlled.

From NavyLT:

Obviously speaking of the deployed environment here.

Sure. If the only choices in a war zone are unarmed or armed and unsupervised, then of course arm them. But remember that these are kids who have been trained and made the cut at least through boot and their other initial training, and shown some measure of maturity. And even then it's allowed only in a war zone.

From TexasRifleman:
I suggest some folks just stay out of threads like this if your only comment is to fret about the age issue.

It's more about maturity than age, although they tend to be related. I think you know what you can do with your suggestion.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

First of all, you should dispel the notion that you are a "stupid teenager." There are literally hundreds of thousands of such "stupid teenagers" entrusted to defend our freedom and security every day with firearms in this great nation's armed forces. At the very least, it is a training issue, not an age or maturity issue.

In your first scenario, if someone draws a knife on you, it's going to be difficult to draw your weapon before he's close enough to stab you. If you manage this feat, then he shouldn't have time to get angry or draw a gun. And if you have your gun drawn on somebody and they can get their own sidearm out before you can pull the trigger, you deserve to die.

And statistically, legal CCW holders are over five times less likely to hurt or kill an innocent bystander than a police officer, last time I checked.

 

[patrick126]

At last he made you think! 18 is very young, regardless of your maturity level. As an ex police officer and full carry permit holder, I'd suggest a few things. Make sure you carry a safe gun, DAO are most preferred by law enforecment these days. Take as much combat, tactical training as you can. Just took a full day at the S&W facility in Ma on point shooting. Our sights were taped over and all we did was work on safety and shooting, a very active day. Many people shoot off a box of rounds at a range and think they can now carry a gun. One thing I learned as a cop, was the rules of escalation, if you will. If someone comes at me with a fist, there's only one place for my gun, secured in a holster so I can fight back and subdue the perp. As a civilian, your only move is to defend and retreat, since there's no need to make an arrest. Would you do that or pull your gun? Most untrained people would pull their gun. Bad move.

If someone comes at you with a bottle, knife, bat, things change quite a bit obviously. As a street wise guy, just pulling the gun may diffuse the situation, or if you have some separation from the guy (s), you can always put one in the ground, if they kept coming then you protect your life. But this would stand up a lot better in court if you showed this measured restraint, assuming the situation warrants this. If some guy pulls a bat in a road incident and you start shooting, better have a good lawyer. But we always said, "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6", but you really need to understand when a civilian has the right to defend themselves with deadly force. In most potentially deadly situations (those w/o a bad guy's gun present), they can be diffused w/o a shot, if you have it in mind that your primary goal is to get away safely, not fire your weapon. To your step father's point, most 18 yr olds don't have this level of maturity and life experiences to make critical decisions in a split second.

 

[MikeNice]

Navy you must be 21 in North Carolina according to General Statute 14-415.12.

 

[Packman]

No personal offense intended with this comment, but his best argument would be that you are "a dumb teenager".

When you become 18 it does not magically turn you into a mature adult who will act responsibly with a firearm. It takes maturity and experience, not a date on the calender.

Being 18y/o you are honestly not as smart or rational as you think you are, sorry you are young and lack experience.

To some of our elder members of this board: Respectfully, I would like to inform you that I find your blanket statements appalling. How dare you pass such a judgment without knowing the man? This sort of age-based argument is exactly the kind of discrimination that infuriates so many people on this board. I fall into this age bracket myself. Telling me that I can't be "responsible" or "smart and rational" because of my age is one of the most insulting things you could say to me.

To your step father's point, most 18 yr olds don't have this level of maturity and life experiences to make critical decisions in a split second.

This is the one comment from this post that makes me angriest. When I was 13 years old, I started taking flight training. I soloed an aircraft on my 16th birthday. I didn't even have a driver's license. When I turned 17, I received an unrestricted pilot's license, permitting me to fly 2000+ pound aircraft anywhere I wanted. I can kill a rather large number of people with an aircraft should I choose to act with malice aforethought.

Before I turned 19, I held both an instrument rating and a commercial pilot's license. Do you honestly mean to tell me that now, a month short of my 21st birthday, that I "lack the maturity and life experience to make a critical decision in a split second?" Sirs and Mesdames, I do so on a daily basis. Do not deign to judge me, nor bigalexe, nor sxechainsaw, nor any of our other so-called "underage" members on this board, to be "too immature" because of our age.

Advanced age does not a wise man make, nor a judicious one.

 

[Vector]

Sorry but I can't leave that one go without comment - I have seen way to many older adults who seem to never grow up to not remind you that those dumb teenagers have been on the forefront of our military since we have maintained a standing army.

I can attest to the fact that when it comes to handling firearms and using them against another human being to protect yourself, that there are many 18 and 19 year old teenagers who have a hell of a lot of experience. If our society treats 18 year olds as kids , then what justification do we have to sending our kids to fight and die for us ?

I hear what you are saying, and also know there are exceptions to the rule.

However I look back to when I was 18, and had I been packing back then, I'd have been much more irresponsible than when I was say, at 23 or so. I knew how to shoot and safely handle a gun at 18 and even owned a couple. However I did not carry because it was illegal, and in my testosterone filled brain figured I could handle most situations without a gun because of my size and training.
Now looking back I see how I might not have exercised the best judgment compared to when I was just a few years older. I suspect that is the reason many states require kids to be older before they can legally carry.

 

[SigFan6255]

The fact that the OP went through the process of legally carrying shows a higher level of maturity. I can guarantee that there is plenty of people from 16-60 that drives around with a loaded handgun under the seat etc.

 

[gbw]

Young Packman, don't be angry, clearly you're an exception which anyone would recognize. Even so, you had to first prove your ability and maturity, which you did.

But laws are passed for and apply to everyone. The law cannot cherry-pick the good 18 y/os, separate them from the masses, and give them special legal treatment.

For things like ccw, alcohol, etc., you are stuck with the lowest common demoninator. Most teens and early 20s just aren't there yet. BTW, how does that argument work with your auto insurance company?

Young men pay by far the highest auto insurance rates. Hertz normally won't rent cars to men under 25. Experience over many years shows that as a rule they have easily the highest accident rates. Why? Same reasons they should not have guns. Lack of age, maturity, judgement, experience, and too much testerone, machismo, immaturity, alcohol.

 

[Packman]

But laws are passed for and apply to everyone. The law cannot cherry-pick the good 18 y/os, separate them from the masses, and give them special legal treatment.

No it can't, and I wouldn't want it to. I freely admit that many of my peers (and I use the term loosely) should absolutely not be entrusted with firearms, airplanes, cars or children. Yet the fact remains that in many cases, we are, for better or worse. My point remains: It's blatantly unfair to judge we few who elevate ourselves to a higher standard of behavior, simply because we are young. Further, I'm insulted when compared to those in my age bracket who chose not to conduct themselves along a higher standard.

The argument applies to the insurance companies as well. They don't know me, but are willing to work with me. I have a good student discount, because I applied myself in high school and continue to do so in college. I have a safe driver discount, because I've never received a speeding ticket nor been involved in an accident. I receive a discount because I choose to drive a pickup truck, which is statistically involved in less incidents with young drivers.

Lack of age, maturity, judgement, experience, and too much testerone, machismo, immaturity, alcohol.

Your point is well made, though mine stands as well. I haven't been involved in a fist fight since I was 12 years old. I choose not to drink alcohol or partake in the use of drugs. I continually place myself in situations requiring the exercise of sound judgement and maturity (notably in the aviation arena).

Aviation, much like carrying a weapon, is terribly unforgiving of poor judgment, immaturity or lack of experience. Testosterone, machismo and anti-authority tendencies are simply not acceptable behaviors in either area. Such ideas are to be left at home, or back on the ground, when one steps foot in the cockpit or puts a belt through the holster loops.

When, in a month's time, I strap on a pistol and go about my day, what will have changed? Not one single thing, except the knowledge that I have bettered my odds in the incredibly high stakes game we call life.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Sorry my post was just an echo of what had already been said.

 

[DocCas]

Exactly. I know you didn't mean to, but you've made my point.

No, I didn't. I proved your point was wrong!

You were not allowed weapons, unsupervised. It took a year and a half, but finally you'd proven your maturity and earned your position as a supervisor of other 18 year olds with guns.

I was 18, the same age as the OP. The point, which you obviously missed, was that you can't make a blanket judgment that any 18 year old is to immature to carry a firearm.

Like most with much contact with them, I maintain that the huge majority of 18 year olds (and 19, 20 minimum) have no business with weapons unless they are supervised and controlled.

I suggest the fault is not with the young people you have contact with but that the problem is your own arrogant bigotry. You can't make blanket statements and not expect to be challenged. Each person must be evaluated on his/her own merits. The OP took the classes, jumped through the bureaucratic hoops, and was found sufficiently mature to be given a carry license. Period.

 

[gbw]

No, not period. Now I'm an arrogant age bigot? That's a new one. Gracious!

You're being silly. We all make blanket judgements every day, especially the well known (but not perfect) relationship between age and adult judgement. There's no avoiding it. Insurance companies do it, the law does it, companies, states and cities do it. It's necessary. Are there exceptions? Of course. That doesn't change the need or the validity.

 

[shockwave]

I was tempted to go through here and tear into those saying that someone 18 years of age isn't mature enough to carry a handgun but I see that's being done already.

Don't hold back on my account. Part of the confusion here is that I don't think anyone is specifically saying that "no 18-yr-old is mature enough," but rather that the totality of experience suggests that few of them are. The business about the military is a canard, because it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Young people can enlist precisely because they are immature and can be molded, they have less self-preservation instinct, and they are easy to recruit.

Actuarial statistics don't lie - automotive insurers have the data:

The risk of being involved in a car accident is highest for drivers aged 16 to 19 than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash.

So. Does that mean that you, personally, were a poor driver in your teens? No, it doesn't. It means that teen drivers are 400-percent more likely to be poor drivers. Since we know from developmental science that an 18-year-old has adequate reflexes to operate a car, their high rates of accidents stem from their lack of experience and poor judgement.

We also know that teens are far, far more likely to crash as a result of having teen passengers in the car. The addition of each additional passenger increases the risk. This is so well documented that some states restrict provisional drivers to not having non-adult passengers at all.

And this gets us around to part of the issue: The young CCW owner may have problems when peers are asking to see the gun, daring the owner to draw it, urging him to use it, etc. The teen environment tends to involve social situations like parties, drug use, dating, contests of skill, etc. Thus on the whole, restrictions about ownership and CCW age are a kind of compromise, as they are with alcohol and tobacco, such that we've chosen a cut-off line that recognizes these realities.

Indeed, to the advocate who stoutly maintains that there should be no firearm restrictions for high schoolers, one would ask where that line should be drawn, if at all? To the real purist on this issue, the answer is "zero limits of any kind for anybody, anywhere, at any time." If the parents are fine with it, then 5 or 6 should be A-OK, right? Or maybe 10? If you have a line you won't cross, where are you drawing it, and why?

 

[1swellguy]

Moving about the planet disarmed is asking to be killed by your attacker. Being armed does not guarantee you will survive an attack, nor that bystanders will be unhurt. But it is nonsense to claim an attacker with a weapon "only wants money and will not hurt you" when stepdad has zero evidence to back this up, and there is ample evidence (crime stats) which refute his absurd claim.

Obviously it is more acceptable to stepdad if stepson gets killed by a thug than if the thug gets wounded or killed.

If a bystander gets hurt, IMO it is the hand of the criminal that caused the circumstance, so he is at fault. Not every juror might see it that way, but if I were a juror, I would have to carefully consider this (based on the circumstances of the case). And it only takes one juror to stand up and say "I will NOT vote guilty" in a clear cut case of self defense.

 

[Charleo0192]

If it's true that there's no reason to carry, then his two scenarios can't happen. If there's a chance you might be attacked by a knife wielding madmen, then you should be carrying.

Ask him if he's willing to bet his life on his mixed martial arts skills against a knife wielding attacker.

This. But sometimes people are just uncomfortable around guns when they aren't in control of them...kind of like when on a motorcycle, some people don't feel at ease when they aren't the ones driving.

 

[gbw]

Shockwave:

Don't hold back on my account. Part of the confusion here is that I don't think anyone is specifically saying that "no 18-yr-old is mature enough," but rather that the totality of experience suggests that few of them are. The business about the military is a canard, because it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Young people can enlist precisely because they are immature and can be molded, they have less self-preservation instinct, and they are easy to recruit.

Well put.

 

[CoRoMo]

I miss all the good threads. Well, anyway...

...I start talking about my concealed pistol.

This pretty much earned you the argument that you deserved. However misguided your guardians may or may not be, you could have avoided the whole dern thing. As you mature, you'll hopefully learn to be slow to speak and to think before you do so. In other words...

...keep quiet, nod your head, and worry yourself with things that actually matter.

 

[1swellguy]

Some 40 year old adults decide to be criminals. This is not mature.

Some 16 year olds hunt, drive carefully, get good grades, do not drink or do drugs, and act very responsibly.

IMHO - It is incredibly wrong (and yes, even bigoted) to paint all persons under 21 with the same broad brush of "immaturity" when such is not the case. Statistics may be fine tools for measuring trends, but not for judging the character of any one individual.

I suppose it is ok with those in the "18 is too young" camp if a 17 year old girl's ex-boyfriend/stalker catches her unarmed on the way home from work or school and murders her? Evidently, she is just "too young and immature" to be allowed to exercise her God given right to possess the MOST effective means of self defense from an attacker.

"An armed society is a polite society." This is true, not only because of the obvious meaning - but also because of the gravity of carrying an instrument capable of inflicting death or great bodily injury. Carrying a firearm will make a mature person THINK before he says or does things. For those of you who carry, do you still give someone who cuts you off on the highway the 1-finger salute? If so, I think YOU are not mature enough to carry, regardless of your age. If not (but you used to), then carrying a firearm has made you a more polite person. Probably because now that you carry, you have thought a great deal about it, and you would rather let the nutty driver drive off than have to shoot him just because you insisted on expressing your disdain with his marginal driving ability.

Just my opinion.

 

[NavyLCDR]

http://www.opencarry.org/age.html

Obviously, my source above needs some work.

 

[TX1911fan]

1swellguy, I agree with you 100%. There are good points on both sides of this age argument, but to respond to the OP with "well, you are too immature because you are 18" is just not helpful. Obviously, the law in his state doesn't think so.

 

[doc2rn]

I got my first handgun that dad went in halves with me on at the Ace Small engine repair shop Feb 26, 1982 when I was 11. I had responsibilities and I worked to make a living every day I wasnt in school ie shoveling snow in the winter and painting houses or mowing grass in the summer. We where so po we couldnt afford the whole word! Yes my eager earnings often paid bills and bought groceries. Even the food I foraged for by fishing and hunting was prepaired for family meals.
If I could do all that and be trusted with a Ruger Standard at age 11 just think of what I could do by the time I was 18!

 

[hardluk1]

Tell your step pop to go to a big city and find the bad part of town and see how his version works out with no weapon.

 

[Yoda]

Does he want grandkids?

Tell you carry so you can be sure that he will have grandkids.

- - - Yoda

 

[NavyLCDR]

And his last argument is that he sees no reason at all for me carrying a concealed weapon.

In this country, there is a murder ever 1/2 hour. There is a violent crime of some type every 23.9 seconds. How can one predict when "their time is up". I would rather carry a gun for a million days and never need it, than not carry a gun one day and do need it. It's not about the odds, it's about the stakes. I am sorry that your step-father does not feel that your life is worth protecting.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/crime_clock.html