Here We Go Again 1994 Redux

Status
Not open for further replies.
.455_Hunter said:
Limits on possession and/or purchase by citizens under 21 are mostly promoted by people who are very far from the under 21 age bracket. This crap will have direct impact on my kids (16 & 12) and I oppose any blanket restrictions based solely on age. For somebody to even suggest age 25 as a needed cut-off shows an extreme disregard for the citizens of this country. Once again, it's all patronizing stupidity.
Click to expand...
I would prefer other signs of maturity as criteria for owning a gun. Most of these mass shooters never learned to interact socially, never held steady jobs, and in general were maladjusted outsiders. So, if you're under 25, show that you graduated high school, made good grades, had a steady work history, etc. But this could be seen as elitist. An age cutoff has the simplicity of being cut-and-dried.

I bought my first pistol at age 22, and my first AR at age 23. I had graduated college, and was in law school by then. I never felt deprived before getting these guns. Frankly, I didn't have the disposable money before then. I'm 77 now, and I don't want my gun rights taken away because of the actions of some wet-behind-the-ears losers.

One of the signs of maturity is to be able to wait for the things you want. "Deferred gratification." Waiting until you're 21 is no big deal.
 
Idahou said:
Im not US citizens and i know this topic is hornest nest for you guys, but somehow i want to help by pointing on some things what i see - mayabe because im not personally involved

1) There is problem with violence and mass attacks in US - in some post (not just here) i kinda feel that some ppl dont want recognize it. Now the existence of problem doesnt mean its guns fault and that they need to be restricted
2) It seems that most common targets are hospitals and schools, that indicate more deep moral problem because those places are ussually protect by society moral code
3) Ussually attackers dont care about consequences - i would say that is also huge factor and indicator
4) Fireaarms makes those attack easier - hold your horses, not saying restrictions are way how to solve this, but superiority of firearm over stick is just fact
5) Gun community seems to just oppose every restriction and instead promotes arming everybody - we all want to protect our hobbies (right, if you want) and somehow expand it, but arming everybody isnt solutions. In same way, there shouldnt be just blind opposition against "efforts" (maybe wrong one, but still effort) to solve or decrease number one problem. Instead gun community should say - we dont think this will work, what about this...
6) I can be wrong in all points, im not local, i dont see into local politics or whats your pro-gun groups doing

While keeping point number 6 in mind, i would say the problem is morale and stress related, its not created by guns, but its multiplied by gun (gun itself is force multiplier so...). BUT if is majority of attackers "mentally not well people", you dont need restrict guns for all, just for those ppl. Certanly not by SBR braces and other bonkers ideas.

So i would propose to get rid of all restriction on semi-automatic guns (but you will still have to settle with limited mags in some states i guess), just cathegorize it as its common in Europe (hunting guns - looong, limited mags, long guns - essentially what ppl see as rifles, short guns - SBR and hanguns - just pistols and revolvers) in exchange... and now read it till end before you enter into your rage mode - need of gun licence to buy gun, felony in case if you sell or give gun to somebody without gun licence, obligation to secure gun against miss-use by person without gun licence or theft
Gun licence - given to US history and citizens feel about government, there is few ways how to do it:
1) Federal and/or state licence - if you get federal licence, it applies in all state, state one is just local
2) Acredited organization/company - government give licence to some organizations or companies making tham responsible for managing gun licences without giving data back to goverment

Requirment to get gun licence should be based on extense of gun licence (mentioned cathegories) - health check, test about gun laws, use, maintance and so (in Czech its 28 question + 2 first aid question, from set of about 600 questions), practical test - demonstating that you can handle said gun cathegory.

Gun licence should be mandatory for new shooters, current gun owners would keep current status but would be allowed to sell gun only to person with gun licence or licenced seller + if they want new gun, they have to get gun licence

Another part what you will propably hate - every gun should be traceable. Again, given to US specification, not by goverment without cause. Meaning that every gun and main gun part will have serial number and serial number would be connected to concrete gun licence. These records could be managed for example by manufacturer and accessed by government only in case of investigation of crime (like gun found on person without gun licence, on crime scene etc...)

All this should be supplemented by option to sell previously not registred gun to licenced seller or submit it to LE without penalty

Similiar system already and sucesfully works in Czech republic and some other states.
Its not perfect, but its reasonable effective with good compromise.

The thing is there is no magical solution. As we said before, problem of mass attacks isnt created by guns and instead its deeper moral and social issue, but untill population would not be reasonably sure that some "meth head" cant get legally gun, gun community in US will face more anti gun moves

Its also important to aknowledge that (outside some bussiness and populists lobby) regular ppl just worry about next mass attacks and see guns as meaning how to carry out such attacks

I dont mean to force my hand into your bussiness, just offering my view on things and if i offended somebody i appologize. Its just my opinion and if you want, pick some thoughts from it or just ignore it ;)
Click to expand...
I cant agree with most of your suggestions, but I appreciate the thought that went into them and your perspective.
 
AlexanderA said:
I would prefer other signs of maturity as criteria for owning a gun. Most of these mass shooters never learned to interact socially, never held steady jobs, and in general were maladjusted outsiders. So, if you're under 25, show that you graduated high school, made good grades, had a steady work history, etc. But this could be seen as elitist. An age cutoff has the simplicity of being cut-and-dried.
...

One of the signs of maturity is to be able to wait for the things you want. "Deferred gratification." Waiting until you're 21 is no big deal.
Click to expand...

I purchased a rifle when I was 18 and had been gifted one years earlier. I'm sure many on this forum have similar stories. I agree with your assessment of the reason for raising the age limit. You point to a bigger issue. That is, many of the people who commit these shootings do not have a role model for the characteristics you describe. It is probable that the "parents" of these shooters lacked those role models as well.

To steer this back to firearms, I just got back from the range with above mentioned rifle. An Ishipore No. 1 MkIII*, rebuilt as a "Santa Fe Carbine" courtesy of Golden State Arms. It will still lay 'em in there out to 300 yards. :)
 
Idahou said:
Im not US citizens and i know this topic is hornest nest for you guys, but somehow i want to help by pointing on some things what i see - mayabe because im not personally involved

1) There is problem with violence and mass attacks in US - in some post (not just here) i kinda feel that some ppl dont want recognize it. Now the existence of problem doesnt mean its guns fault and that they need to be restricted
2) It seems that most common targets are hospitals and schools, that indicate more deep moral problem because those places are ussually protect by society moral code
3) Ussually attackers dont care about consequences - i would say that is also huge factor and indicator
4) Fireaarms makes those attack easier - hold your horses, not saying restrictions are way how to solve this, but superiority of firearm over stick is just fact
5) Gun community seems to just oppose every restriction and instead promotes arming everybody - we all want to protect our hobbies (right, if you want) and somehow expand it, but arming everybody isnt solutions. In same way, there shouldnt be just blind opposition against "efforts" (maybe wrong one, but still effort) to solve or decrease number one problem. Instead gun community should say - we dont think this will work, what about this...
6) I can be wrong in all points, im not local, i dont see into local politics or whats your pro-gun groups doing

While keeping point number 6 in mind, i would say the problem is morale and stress related, its not created by guns, but its multiplied by gun (gun itself is force multiplier so...). BUT if is majority of attackers "mentally not well people", you dont need restrict guns for all, just for those ppl. Certanly not by SBR braces and other bonkers ideas.

So i would propose to get rid of all restriction on semi-automatic guns (but you will still have to settle with limited mags in some states i guess), just cathegorize it as its common in Europe (hunting guns - looong, limited mags, long guns - essentially what ppl see as rifles, short guns - SBR and hanguns - just pistols and revolvers) in exchange... and now read it till end before you enter into your rage mode - need of gun licence to buy gun, felony in case if you sell or give gun to somebody without gun licence, obligation to secure gun against miss-use by person without gun licence or theft
Gun licence - given to US history and citizens feel about government, there is few ways how to do it:
1) Federal and/or state licence - if you get federal licence, it applies in all state, state one is just local
2) Acredited organization/company - government give licence to some organizations or companies making tham responsible for managing gun licences without giving data back to goverment

Requirment to get gun licence should be based on extense of gun licence (mentioned cathegories) - health check, test about gun laws, use, maintance and so (in Czech its 28 question + 2 first aid question, from set of about 600 questions), practical test - demonstating that you can handle said gun cathegory.

Gun licence should be mandatory for new shooters, current gun owners would keep current status but would be allowed to sell gun only to person with gun licence or licenced seller + if they want new gun, they have to get gun licence

Another part what you will propably hate - every gun should be traceable. Again, given to US specification, not by goverment without cause. Meaning that every gun and main gun part will have serial number and serial number would be connected to concrete gun licence. These records could be managed for example by manufacturer and accessed by government only in case of investigation of crime (like gun found on person without gun licence, on crime scene etc...)

All this should be supplemented by option to sell previously not registred gun to licenced seller or submit it to LE without penalty

Similiar system already and sucesfully works in Czech republic and some other states.
Its not perfect, but its reasonable effective with good compromise.

The thing is there is no magical solution. As we said before, problem of mass attacks isnt created by guns and instead its deeper moral and social issue, but untill population would not be reasonably sure that some "meth head" cant get legally gun, gun community in US will face more anti gun moves

Its also important to aknowledge that (outside some bussiness and populists lobby) regular ppl just worry about next mass attacks and see guns as meaning how to carry out such attacks

I dont mean to force my hand into your bussiness, just offering my view on things and if i offended somebody i appologize. Its just my opinion and if you want, pick some thoughts from it or just ignore it ;)
Click to expand...

Much of what you're suggesting is already in place in Illinois, New York and California and it's done nothing to curb crime, in fact crime is skyrocketing in the major cities in those states. The other issue you should be aware of is the Democratic party here is not trying to save lives. If they were sincerely trying to do that we could work with them to accomplish that. They are using these shootings as a means to an end, doing away with our Second Amendment. It's pretty much impossible to work and negotiate in good faith with people who are lying. You may remember Rahm Emmanuel's famous quote when he worked for Obama - never let a crisis go to waste. Again that's exactly what they're doing - using people's deaths to advance their political goals. You'll notice that they have done nothing about the carnage that has been going on for years in Chicago, they refuse to prosecute violent criminals in cities they run such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco and have encouraged rioting in cities they run. It came out during the week that Seattle is no longer investigating the rape of adults as the defund the police movement by the Dems has led to staffing shortages and they don't have the manpower to do so. I can keep going on but I hope you get the point. In regards to us having a moral problem here, on that I agree.
 
Last edited:
D.B. Cooper said:
Those are often, though not universally, unarmed. I know my state's is.
Click to expand...
Most of the disaster response of the National Guard is un armed (but military disciplined and under mlitary regualtion.).
Tennessee State Guard visited our military rifle matches at the club and at the local gun shows. Skill set requirements were more EMT than weapons.
 
AlexanderA said:
I would prefer other signs of maturity as criteria for owning a gun. Most of these mass shooters never learned to interact socially, never held steady jobs, and in general were maladjusted outsiders. So, if you're under 25, show that you graduated high school, made good grades, had a steady work history, etc. But this could be seen as elitist. An age cutoff has the simplicity of being cut-and-dried.

I bought my first pistol at age 22, and my first AR at age 23. I had graduated college, and was in law school by then. I never felt deprived before getting these guns. Frankly, I didn't have the disposable money before then. I'm 77 now, and I don't want my gun rights taken away because of the actions of some wet-behind-the-ears losers.

One of the signs of maturity is to be able to wait for the things you want. "Deferred gratification." Waiting until you're 21 is no big deal.
Click to expand...

A rather sad commentary that that you are willing to sacrifice the firearms rights of other American Citizens just as long as it doesn't hurt your self-interests. Perhaps adding "old white guys" to the prohibited persons list would be appropriate since that that matches the Las Vegas shooter's profile- maybe then it would be a "big deal".

I have been fighting this patronizing "kids and guns" virtue signaling since I was 17 in 1993, and the Colorado D's decided that every kid with a handgun under the age of 18 was a criminal since the gang bangers in Denver and Aurora kept killing each other. It didn't matter if the kid wasn't committing any violent crime- simple possession was the crime. Now the age limits continue to go up and up and up, and more responsible young adults get caught in the nooses of arrogance and ignorance.
 
AlexanderA said:
The mentally ill will always be among us. Likewise, guns (particularly the AR-15) will always be among us. What has to change is the linkage between the two. The mentally ill (diagnosed and undiagnosed) must not have access to guns. We, as gun owners, need to find creative ways to accomplish this -- in our own long-term interest. So far, we have failed miserably. We're stuck in the pro-gun/antigun rut.
Click to expand...
Robert said:
While I appreciate your position, comparing the US to any other country in the world is moot. Our Constitution clearly enumerates the rights granted to all people at birth. These rights are not granted by the government. A right granted by the government is a privilege and is subject to the whims, restrictions, of the government. A right is not.

We already have to complete a background check anytime we buy a firearm from a dealer. Most states require one even if you buy from a private party. We have something on the order of over 20,000 gun laws when you include all the state and local laws. How is my giving up more of my rights going to change anything? As I've been telling all the people in my life that start the conversation with "I feel", I don't care about your feelings, your feeling do not trump my rights.

As a law abiding gun owner, I absolutely want to see an end to these horrible acts, but punishing me is not the answer. Enforce the laws already on the books, make prison time count, and don't give these attention seekers names a single second of air time. But I digress into things that are off topic for THR.

We, law abiding gun owners, have given away a good portion of our rights in the name of safety. Now they want more. This will not end until there is a total ban. They are coming for our guns. And any gun owner that supports any of the proposed "common sense" gun control is no ally of mine.
Click to expand...
Hear, Hear. Again the people that know these people are the key to stopping mass murder before it happens. But we never learn and then the government sets in with more weapon control.
 
TomJ said:
Much of what you're suggesting is already in place in Illinois, New York and California and it's done nothing to curb crime, in fact crime is skyrocketing in the major cities in those states. The other issue you should be aware of is the the Democratic party here is not trying to save lives. If they were sincerely trying to do that we could work with them to accomplish that. They are using these shootings as a means to an end, doing away with our Second Amendment. It's pretty much impossible to work and negotiate in good faith with people who are lying. You may remember Rahm Emmanuel's famous quote when he worked for Obama - never let a crisis go to waste. Again that's exactly what they're doing - using people's deaths to advance their political goals. You'll notice that they have done nothing about the carnage that has been going on for years in Chicago, they refuse to prosecute violent criminals in cities they run such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco and have encouraged rioting in cities they run. It came out during the week that Seattle is no longer investigating the rape of adults as the defund the police movement by the Dems has led to staffing shortages and they don't have the manpower to do so. I can keep going on but I hope you get the point. In regards to us having a moral problem here, on that I agree.
Click to expand...

correct. 95% or more of gun crime is handguns. 95% of those handguns are illegally possessed or acquired. The laws are already on the books. The proposed restrictions are either feel-good, or will only impose on legal owners. A cynical person such as myself might even say the government is more focused on disarming it’s citizenry than preventing any crime.
 
mokin said:
I purchased a rifle when I was 18 and had been gifted one years earlier.
Click to expand...
mokin said:
To steer this back to firearms, I just got back from the range with above mentioned rifle. An Ishipore No. 1 MkIII*,
Click to expand...
Yes, I too had "ordinary" rifles before I was 21, including an Australian Lithgow No. 1 Mk. III*. Cost all of $12 out of the surplus bin at Academy in Austin, Texas.

The AR is a different animal entirely. All rifles are not created equal. Therefore different age limits can rationally apply to the different types.
 
.455_Hunter said:
Now the age limits continue to go up and up and up, and more responsible young adults get caught in the nooses of arrogance and ignorance.
Click to expand...
Why then don't those "responsible" young adults get more active in self-policing their peer group? The typical pattern is that the weird outsiders (the potential mass shooters) get bullied, harassed, and shunned by their classmates. Then they lash back. If only someone had befriended the weirdo at the critical time....
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes, I too had "ordinary" rifles before I was 21, including an Australian Lithgow No. 1 Mk. III*. Cost all of $12 out of the surplus bin at Academy in Austin, Texas.

The AR is a different animal entirely. All rifles are not created equal. Therefore different age limits can rationally apply to the different types.
Click to expand...

I had an M-16A1 before I was 19 although it was just on loan from an uncle. It had all the scary features.
 
I can't get behind raising the age to 21 for purchase anything. In fact, I think it needs rolled back to 18 fir handguns too.
Ya, I get this new generation is not on par with Gen X, but nor was Gen X (I'm Gen X) on par with Boomers, nor are Boomers on par with the greatest Generation (to be fair..I doubt any generation before, nor any coming will EVER be on par with them. Tough, hardy...just plain GREAT)...

Point being...if a kid can get drafted, or volunteer to join the military at 18 (17 if parents sign them in...like mine did for me) than I'm sorry...they are adults and deserve all that comes with it...PERIOD.

Drinking also needs to be 18 too. Outrageous unfair that a kid can be sent to go catch a bullet, but can't drink a beer.

The alternative...raising the age to 21 for everything...draft, purchase guns...vote..etc, is a very hard sell at this point.

For better or worse...the age is 18.
 
AlexanderA said:
I would prefer other signs of maturity as criteria for owning a gun. Most of these mass shooters never learned to interact socially, never held steady jobs, and in general were maladjusted outsiders. So, if you're under 25, show that you graduated high school, made good grades, had a steady work history, etc. But this could be seen as elitist. An age cutoff has the simplicity of being cut-and-dried.

I bought my first pistol at age 22, and my first AR at age 23. I had graduated college, and was in law school by then. I never felt deprived before getting these guns. Frankly, I didn't have the disposable money before then. I'm 77 now, and I don't want my gun rights taken away because of the actions of some wet-behind-the-ears losers.

One of the signs of maturity is to be able to wait for the things you want. "Deferred gratification." Waiting until you're 21 is no big deal.
Click to expand...
Huh? I never graduated high school, and haven't lived with my parents since I was 18.... therefore, I must live without the means to defend myself and my wife until I'm 21?
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes, I too had "ordinary" rifles before I was 21, including an Australian Lithgow No. 1 Mk. III*. Cost all of $12 out of the surplus bin at Academy in Austin, Texas.

The AR is a different animal entirely. All rifles are not created equal. Therefore different age limits can rationally apply to the different types.
Click to expand...
BS. It's scary in the minds of the ignorant. That's the difference
 
The lack of evidence-based information behind the concept of prohibiting those under 21 from purchasing semi-automatic rifles should be of concern to many.

Because all of two individuals committed the most recent "mass shootings" (perhaps " single incident multiple homicides induced by mental illness" would be more accurate) with AR-15 platform rifles legally purchased, now there's a call to raise the age for buying these rifles to 21?

To be equitable across the board, raise the voting age back to 21. There may be evidence to suggest that the demographic responsible for electing some of our most notorious and air-headed knuckleheads to Congress are very young people. How else do you explain AOC, Tlaib, Omar, Booker, et al?

Raise the age for the draft and sending our military personnel overseas to 21. If one is not mature enough to buy and own a rifle, why give one a rifle specifically to kill other humans? Any hypocrisy present here? And don't try to tell me it's okay if one is "mature" enough to enlist and all that about the military providing structure, discipline and ethics -- I served on active duty for a quarter-century.

Heck, we raised the legal drinking age back up to 21, so one can't buy beer until they're 21 -- has that stopped teenage house parties or keg parties in the woods in your town?

Raise the age for obtaining a driver license and driving on public roadways to 21. Lord knows, the evidence is substantial that a huge proportion of the carnage on our public roadways is caused by teen drivers. (Or caused by alcohol, so while we're at it, let's make driving while under the influence illegal, that should work.)

AlexanderA said:
Why then don't those "responsible" young adults get more active in self-policing their peer group? The typical pattern is that the weird outsiders (the potential mass shooters) get bullied, harassed, and shunned by their classmates. Then they lash back. If only someone had befriended the weirdo at the critical time....
Click to expand...
There are literally millions of teen victims of bullying throughout our country who never obtain firearms to kill others (many end up suicidal or as substance abusers). They simply remain at home playing video games, living life on the internet and social media, while struggling through the difficult years. Expecting "young adults" to self-police within their peer group is unrealistic to the extreme, especially in the society into which we've devolved: dysfunctional, fractured, self-absorbed, public school curriculum subjected to political agendas, materialistic, instant gratification, no boundaries, no sexual mores, bombarded by depictions of violence and sexual depravity... We cannot get the grown-ups to self-police within their peer groups (been to a school board or city council meeting lately?).

Liberty -- true freedom -- will continue to be not without risk. But we should be consistent. The patchwork of laws, picking and choosing of arbitrary wickets such as numbers (as if each human matures on a set schedule) already has been proved to have very little or no effect on stopping or lowering crime -- rather, the more laws, the more criminals we create. And the ultimate hypocrisy: gun control -- it's to stop killing the children, while promoting unlimited access to abortion.
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes, I too had "ordinary" rifles before I was 21, including an Australian Lithgow No 1 Mk. III*. Cost all of $12 out of the surplus bin at Academy in Austin, Texas.

The AR is a different animal entirely. All rifles are not created equal. Therefore different age limits can rationally apply to the different types.
Click to expand...
How very FUDD of you. The AR platform is no different, functionally, than rifles designed by John Browning over 100 years ago. If you don't like them, don't buy them, but don't tell others they can't. I have taught 17 year olds who were far more mature than many 37 year olds I have done business with.
 
AlexanderA said:
Why then don't those "responsible" young adults get more active in self-policing their peer group? The typical pattern is that the weird outsiders (the potential mass shooters) get bullied, harassed, and shunned by their classmates. Then they lash back. If only someone had befriended the weirdo at the critical time....
Click to expand...

That's a talllllll order you're asking of adolescents. You have no idea how truly complex and how important (in their world at least) the social ranking order is in an American high school. Peer pressure is an enormous, and very effective, force.
 
mokin said:
I had an M-16A1 before I was 19 although it was just on loan from an uncle. It had all the scary features.
Click to expand...

You and me both. But as I recall, mine was locked in a vault anytime I didn't have a specific need to have it. Then, when I did need to have it, I wasn't given any ammunition for it until we got to the place we were going to actually need ammo for it. When we were done, the rifles went back into the vault. We were under constant and direct supervision during the entire time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
What Are We Going to Do About It?
Replies
5
Views
538
Robert Hairless
R
hso
This is what "statement politics" looks like
Replies
8
Views
726
tmd16556
T
S
  • Locked
Gun-Grabber Regime Preparedness List
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
jlbraun
J
J
  • Locked
Here we go again (Bush reverses stand on AW ban)
Replies
2
Views
665
Tamara
T
R
  • Locked
New Orleans paper: magazine prices plummet!
Replies
11
Views
1K
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
Back
Top