Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

It's definitely not an arbitrary age. To your point though, there isn't a specific age where the "maturity" box gets checked on your character sheet.

What happens after ~7,665 days of life that makes this age a rational choice?

[TZucchini]

And what does that have to do with what I said? People don't miraculously become responsible at age 21. It's a completely arbitrary age.

No one said that people miraculously become responsible at age 21. You can't legislate differently to millions of different teenagers. You have to choose an age. No matter what age you choose, it's arbitrary.

So what's your point? 18 is just as arbitrary as 21.

[petej0]

The Constitution gives the right of interpretation to the US Supreme Court.

The Constitutions give the Supreme Courts the right to determine the constitutionality of our laws. So explain how it is constitutional that a legal adult can have their rights infringed when they havent done anything wrong.

So, yes, there is a right and wrong. The Supreme Court is right. You are wrong.

Are you suggesting that you agree with all Supreme Court conclusions? You dont take issue with any of their rulings? I am not interested in who is right or wrong. I am interested in how they came to this conclusion.

[TZucchini]

He's making it seem as if no one drinks until they are 21 anyway.

When did I make it seem like that? Please quote.

[petej0]

So what's your point? 18 is just as arbitrary as 21.

My argument is why two separate ages? How is it you can vote, smoke, join the military, marry and enter into contracts, at 18 but cant drink and purchase a weapon until 21? If 18 is the age of legal adulthood then they should have all the rights of a legal adult...not some provisional rights?

[TZucchini]

The Constitutions give the Supreme Courts the right to determine the constitutionality of our laws. So explain how it is constitutional that a legal adult can have their rights infringed when they havent done anything wrong.

Sure. I'd be glad to explain that to you.

First off, you, as well as many other people on this forum, don't understand the meaning of the word infringe. It's a legal term meaning: the violation of a right or law. Since the Supreme Court determines what violates the law, any ruling they determine makes it impossible to be an infringement. A Supreme Court ruling can NOT be an infringement. It's impossible.

Are you suggesting that you agree with all Supreme Court conclusions? You dont take issue with any of their rulings? I am not interested in who is right or wrong. I am interested in how they came to this conclusion.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with their conclusions. Constitutionally, their rulings are all that matter. Constitutionally, they're always right.

[Tinykong]

So what's your point? 18 is just as arbitrary as 21.

If it's just as arbitrary, then why not base all age based laws around 18?

[TZucchini]

My argument is why two separate ages? How is it you can vote, smoke, join the military, marry and enter into contracts, at 18 but cant drink and purchase a weapon until 21? If 18 is the age of legal adulthood then they should have all the rights of a legal adult...not some provisional rights?

Why? Smoking, drinking, voting, etc., are not in any way shape or form similar to purchasing and owning a firearm. Why should we randomly assign an age to everything? Why not look at each activity, and decide based on substance.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's just as arbitrary, then why not base all age based laws around 18?

Because that would be even more arbitrary. We should look at the substance and consequence of each law, and decide using our heads. Not some randomly generated number.

[lockedout]

Lowering the drinking age to 18 resulted in thousands of more traffic accidents and fatalities.

Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Driv...l#.Uwu7U_ldWis

[Tinykong]

Because that would be even more arbitrary. We should look at the substance and consequence of each law, and decide using our heads. Not some randomly generated number.

How is 18 any different than 21? If both ages are equally arbitrary, then choosing 21 over 18 serves to restrict rights without reason.

The logic you are using, however, is that because of the consequences of lowering the drinking age, firearm ownership age should remain at 21. That's a false equivalency.

[TZucchini]

Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Driv...l#.Uwu7U_ldWis

Establishing 21 as the minimum legal drinking age has: saved 1000 lives per year, 12 including more than 800 lives among young adults aged 18-20

[lockedout]

How is 18 any different than 21? If both ages are equally arbitrary, then choosing 21 over 18 serves to restrict rights without reason.

The logic you are using, however, is that because of the consequences of lowering the drinking age, firearm ownership age should remain at 21. That's a false equivalency.

So wait, I can join the army and kill people with a gun, I just can't buy or own one myself.

- - - Updated - - -

Establishing 21 as the minimum legal drinking age has: saved 1000 lives per year, 12 including more than 800 lives among young adults aged 18-20

I am not arguing that read what I linked. It just switched those fatalities to match the new drinking age.
"simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24."
Which shows the number is totally arbitrary, you get the same results at both ages, the study concluded that it wasn't drinking age that played part in these accidents but drinking experience.

[petej0]

Sure. I'd be glad to explain that to you.

First off, you, as well as many other people on this forum, don't understand the meaning of the word infringe. It's a legal term meaning: the violation of a right or law. Since the Supreme Court determines what violates the law, any ruling they determine makes it impossible to be an infringement. A Supreme Court ruling can NOT be an infringement. It's impossible.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with their conclusions. Constitutionally, their rulings are all that matter. Constitutionally, they're always right.

The supreme court ruling that it is ok to deny the rights of legal adults is wrong (morally). I suspect there are rulings you disagree with too. You are afraid to look hypocritical by saying so.

Why? Smoking, drinking, voting, etc., are not in any way shape or form similar to purchasing and owning a firearm.

It doesnt matter how similar or dissimilar they are. How do we treat 18 year old persons in this country as an adult if they are not bestowed the same rights as a 21 year old?

Why should we randomly assign an age to everything? Why not look at each activity, and decide based on substance.

If we have determined 18 to be an ADULT then they should be treated as an ADULT. Not a damn child. If you dont think a 19 year old kid is responsible enough to make adult choices and act responsibly like an adult then why are they considered a legal adult? Either they are a legal adult capable of making adult choices and taking on the responsibilities of an adult or they are not. You cant have it both ways.

[TZucchini]

How is 18 any different than 21? If both ages are equally arbitrary, then choosing 21 over 18 serves to restrict rights without reason.

Without reason? I've already given you a reason. On average, older people tend to be more mature. Firearms should be handled by mature individuals.

The logic you are using, however, is that because of the consequences of lowering the drinking age, firearm ownership age should remain at 21. That's a false equivalency.

Jesus Christ this forum just loves to play the logical fallacy card. That's not what I said. I used it as an example. Not the reason why.

[lockedout]

Without reason? I've already given you a reason. On average, older people tend to be more mature. Firearms should be handled by mature individuals.

The government think's it's ok for me at age 18 to fight in a war and shoot people with................a gun.

[TZucchini]

Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Driv...l#.Uwu7U_ldWis

Your citation isn't a study. It's a blog by some guy that ends with "To believe that the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21 is effective is to ignore the facts and live in a fantasy world." Doesn't sound very reputable.

[Tinykong]

Without reason? I've already given you a reason. On average, older people tend to be more mature. Firearms should be handled by mature individuals.

Is there any proof of this, or are you arguing anecdotes?

[TZucchini]

The government think's it's ok for me at age 18 to fight in a war and shoot people with................a gun.

It's almost like private firearm ownership is different than serving in the military.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there any proof of this, or are you arguing anecdotes?

I figured that we could agree that older people tend to be more mature than younger people.....

I mean honestly. Do you really need a citation for that?

[Tinykong]

I figured that we could agree that older people tend to be more mature than younger people.....

I mean honestly. Do you really need a citation for that?

That's not what you are arguing. You're saying that there is some difference between a 21 year old and an 18 year old that requires their rights to be restricted.

[Mayhem]

Is there any proof of this, or are you arguing anecdotes?

are you now picking fights for the fun of it? i mean, seriously?

- - - Updated - - -

The government think's it's ok for me at age 18 to fight in a war and shoot people with................a gun.

and you see no difference between military trained people and civilians?

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what you are arguing. You're saying that there is some difference between a 21 year old and an 18 year old that requires their rights to be restricted.

you mean despite the 3 years difference making the 21 year person older than the 18 year one?