Raising gun purchase age to 21 is the laziest way of handling the mass shooter crisis - Politics Discussion

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

Because this recent shooting involved someone younger than 21 its now sexy to not allow 18-20 year olds to buy a gun.

Though I don't believe the bill outlaws 18-20 year olds to go to a range and practice.

At this point no reform will help in my opinion. Not even arming teachers. That could start a whole new problem actually. In all actuality what we need to do is increase the punishment on parents and guardians who do not lock up their guns and then they're used in one of these shootings.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) 2 years ago

Buffalo and Texas gunmen owned their arms so your suggestion wouldn't have worked.

Other countries adapt strict gun laws because they do work! States with strict gun laws also have fewer gun deaths than states which don't.

reply

[–] CraigC (8220) 2 years ago

That Constitution that allows people like you to recklessly run their mouths and spew lies is the same one that allows law abiding citizens to own firearms. Can't have one without the other. You don't save sheep from wolves by disarming the sheep. Stupid.

The solution is people like YOU need to stop enabling, creating and perpetuating the creation of the monsters who perpetrate these crimes. Your ideology is an utter failure in a free country.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) 2 years ago

Nope! You're not a well-regulated militia.

reply

[–] CraigC (8220) 2 years ago

Yes I am.

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

We aren't other countries, now are we? We also have wide open free speech rights that other first world nations do not. Are we going to change that as well because people get offended?

Americans have a right to own guns. Its that simple. Our Supreme Court has already made that clear over and over again. Not to mention only a small group of Democrats even want strict laws like this because even they know its insane.

States with stricter laws do not have fewer gun deaths. That is a myth or just nitpicked data. You're delusional.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

I mean it addresses one silly thing, the fact 18 year old kids can buy an AR15 at 18, but cant buy a beer. but this won't stop most mass shootings the issue is multifaceted. and it doesnt address the multitude of other issues with current US gun laws that combined would help massively reduce mass shootings.

1. gun show loophole
2. quick, poor and superficial background checks
3. the 48 hour gun waiting period
4. large magazines
5. ease of access to what other countries consider "restricted firearms" (shotguns, handguns)
6.poor gun storage laws
7. poor gun transportation laws

reply

[–] CraigC (8220) 2 years ago

1. There is no gun show loophole.
2. A background check is a background check. you're either a convicted felon or you're not.
3. Unconstitutional and lame
4. Completely irrelevant
5. What other countries do is irrelevant
6. Unconstitutional and lame
7. Unconstitutional and lame

None of that will affect anyone but law abiding citizens. Stop crime, ban liberals.

reply

[–] Grimace788 (267) 2 years ago

The silly thing is that adults who are 18 can't buy a beer. They can vote, join the military, buy an AR15, get married, and be on the hook when they sign for tens of thousands of dollars' worth of student loans. They are old/wise enough for all of those things. No beer though, that would be outrageous.

I think the beer thing comes down to the fact that there is no particular lobby who wants to get behind lowering the drinking age, so it was easy to take that right away. The NRA can use the 2nd and 26th amendments as its basis for setting the gun purchasing age at 18. The 2nd talks about the right to bear arms and the 26th gives 18 year olds the right to vote, which strongly implies that 18 year olds are adults.

reply

[–] Padeen (6459) 2 years ago

Shotguns a restricted firearm? Its always seemed like gun control proponents are fine with those in this country. Most of them simply want to ban semi-auto rifles. I've never heard someone saying the humble shotgun should be more restricted since the most common type is pump action and holds less ammo than a "high capacity magazine."

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

NO you are right. I thought handguns and shotguns were under restricted firearms. meaning you can still get them, just the waiting period is longer and even more background scrutiny. which doesnt mean that fucking joke of 48 hours or you get the gun if the FBI doesnt get back to them. no its a 60 day waiting period.

but I was wrong.

reply

[–] CraigC (8220) 2 years ago

You have no friggin' clue what you're talking about.

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

I agree with 6 and 7. As for 1, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Its a myth.

2, this is probably one I'd add to the agree side, but I'd like to add some exemptions.

3, this doesn't really matter to be honest.

I'm somewhat confused on 5. Those two are some of your most basic guns. Restricting these types of guns is the most ludicrous idea ever.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

1. "Gun show loophole is a political term in the United States referring to the sale of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, that do not require the seller to conduct a federal background check of the buyer. This is also called the private sale exemption."

https://gunsandamerica.org/story/19/01/29/what-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole-really-looks-like/

https://www.bradyunited.org/issue/laws-and-loopholes

how does it not exist and is a myth? im genuinely curious. if I wanted to sell guns to criminals. id be dumb not to go to a gun show and buy abunch and sell them at a profit.

3. it is an issue because some US states dont require a licence to buy a gun. SO how do you know if the person purchasing them has a criminal background, particularly one related to threatening others or mental instability? especially when he fib doesnt get back to the store and they hand over the gun anyways

vs the Canadian system that has a liscening system that takes up to 3-4 months to complete. including through background checks that may even include a more thorough investigation by police.

5. I was actually wrong shotguns arent on the list but handguns are. the idea is that handguns are easy to conceal and hide vs say a long rifle. and hence often used in crime

I actually learned some new things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

as a patchwork combined the US actually had pretty good and advanced systems. the problem is they are so patchwork, that they undermine each other and make them ineffective overall

There is no single silver bullet to gun crime and mass shootings. its a combination of the things I mentioned above that lessen gun crime, not completely end it. its a system every single democratic First Nation except the USA has and it works.

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

It's a myth because all federal and state gun selling laws still apply. You, and others might be thinking of the exemption private owners to sell to each other in the same state. This has nothing to do with gun shows.

We get it, the only way to end our gun violence issue is with banning all guns. However, our gun culture is unmatched in every other nation. What works for some doesn't work for everyone. Clearly so in this case. We need guns for hunting at a bare minimum. And please do not say we don't need to hunt, that will end the conversation.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

We get it, the only way to end our gun violence issue is with banning all guns.

where did I ever say or even imply that in the slightest??

NOOO what shows to be working for over 20 other countries works for a reason. the one outlier that doesn't have these shows their system doesn't work.

you've made-up a lot in your head. I work with lots of diehard conservatives in my town. I live in a small town. many are former military and many have guns and hunt.

they are DISGUSTED with the US gun system. they think its an embarrassment. they think it tarnishes all gun owners and you all are literally insane.

so again, stop strawmannirg me, stop making stuff up in your head. I never called for a ban of all guns. I never said we don't need them for hunting. address the words I say, not your makeup ideas.

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

You're the one who pushed myths about some fake gun show loophole. You're the one who brought up hand guns being banned in other nations.

You're the one who is going extreme here. Now, if I'm reading all of that wrong, I'm sorry, but it clearly comes off as you want to go to the extreme route.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

also not a myth
http://www.houstontx.gov/againstgunviolence/public/documents/86th-Session-Background-Checks-at-Gun-Shows.pdf

"
Despite overwhelming public support for universal background checks, Texas does not currently require background checks for firearms sold or traded at gun shows by private individuals or unlicensed vendors."

WHOOPS.

where did I say handguns are banned?? I said restricted. theres unrestricted and restricted firearms licences. many countries have two tiers of gun licences. and yes, you need a license. you can get handguns with restricted licence. educate yourself. you just proved why im right. you dont know what the fuck you are talking about and what is happening in the rest of the world

LOLL im going to extreme by saying "maybe we should have proper gun storage laws, lower magazine capacity so you cant shoot as many people without reloading and better background checks'

which aligns with pretty much every single other developed nation. you are an idiot man. 78 comments in and you already looking like a drool chin

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

You keep spewing nonsense about other nations this and that, but don't want the same strict laws they have, which mean total or close to it gun bans? Child please.

I've already said I'm in favor of stronger punishments for those who don't properly lockup their guns, especially with kids and teenagers around.

I do thank you for posting that info on Texas. In your quote it totally disproves any gun show loophole. How you didn't understand that is baffling to say the least.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

"You keep spewing nonsense about other nations this and that, but don't want the same strict laws they have, which mean total or close to it gun bans? Child please."

NO NO IT DOESNT. bro fucking educate yourself. you are making shit up about a world you are ignorant about. you are looking like a big fucking embarrassment here.

there are systems in place like a license that requires a thorough background check. when you have the gun there are stricter gun storage and transportation laws. besides say Japan, most western countries have the framework I mentioned in my original post.

THIS ISNT A BAN ON FIREARMS. this isnt A TOTAL BAN ON GUNS.. again educate yourself clown

"I do thank you for posting that info on Texas. In your quote it totally disproves any gun show loophole. How you didn't understand that is baffling to say the least."

it really doesn't

"
Despite overwhelming public support for universal background checks, Texas does not currently require background checks for firearms sold or traded at gun shows by private individuals or unlicensed vendors."

you said federal or state laws still apply. well the gun show loophole was originally brought in at the federal level. the only thing that would oversee these private purchases then would be local state laws..

which as the quote shows TEXAS DOES NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARMS SOLD OR TRADED AT GUN SHOWS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

this is literally what the gun show loophole is. a loophole to get out of background checks.

derp derp derp. dont forget to wipe your drool up

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

"which as the quote shows TEXAS DOES NOT CURRENTLY REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARMS SOLD OR TRADED AT GUN SHOWS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS"

Wrong! It has nothing to do with gun shows. The laws do not apply to private sales or trades, period! In fact, since most of the people selling at these large gun shows are not private sellers, but are in fact licensed sellers, they have to follow the laws!

Thus, the so called gun show loop hole is a straight up myth.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

citation please that most are licences sellers

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

"How common are licensed sellers at gun shows?
How common is it for licensed sellers to set up shop at gun shows? The available data is old and of uncertain accuracy, but what data we have shows that gun show vendors are often licensed sellers."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/04/09/gun-policy-address-joe-biden-exaggerates-background-check-gun-show/7156770002/

Now, can you finally admit you're wrong about the term "gunshow loophole?

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

wait wait wait. "often". you said its a myth and doesnt happen?

can you finally admit you are wrong about the term "gunshot loophole"

from YOUR OWN ARTICLE

"Professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015 and found that 22% of gun owners who reported obtaining their most recent firearm within the previous two years reported doing so without a background check. For firearms purchased privately, including sales between individuals in person, online or at gun shows, 50% were obtained without a background check.

Jay Corzine, a sociologist at the University of Central Florida who specializes in gun research, said that observations that he and his wife, fellow University of Central Florida sociologist Lin Huff-Corzine, have made in Florida in recent years suggest that licensed dealers have a "disproportionate amount of the stock" for sale at shows, accounting for roughly three-fourths of sales."

so 25% in their study, 1/4 are using the loophole to obtain guns with no background check. wow I was right!!!!

it isnt a myth. and does happen. try again! your own article admitted it

reply

[–] CraigC (8220) 2 years ago

1. There is no "gun show loophole". Period. There is simply no requirement for a person to go through a background check to sell their personal property to another. Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers.

"id be dumb not to go to a gun show and buy abunch and sell them at a profit."

And you'd be a felon for doing so.

3. This ain't Canada and Constitutional rights aren't rights if they require a license. Sorry but this idea that a bunch of people are buying gun legally because there's no response to their background check is just false.

reply

[–] CowherPower4Ever (241) 2 years ago

"1. There is no "gun show loophole". Period. There is simply no requirement for a person to go through a background check to sell their personal property to another. Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers."

THIS, THIS RIGHT HERE!

If you are a license dealer you are still required to follow the federal and states laws! If you are not, and most are at these shows, you are then a private seller and the laws do not cover that, but it has nothing to do with gun shows.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17455) 2 years ago

At this point no reform will help in my opinion.

That's not true. Reforming family courts to remove bias against fathers will help.

Reforming school curriculums to cater more towards the way boys learn, express themselves, and expend their energy will help.

Reforming tax incentives and credits for married couples to remain together will help.

Reforming the welfare state will help.

But none of this will happen. Hello 3rd world Earth!

reply

[–] kspkap (13568) 2 years ago

THIS!! ^^^^👏🏻👏🏻

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11758) 2 years ago

How dare you.

reply

[–] Keelai (34880) 2 years ago

Both parties are attempting to look like they're doing something when they're not. They're hoping the angry public will fall for their ruse.

reply

[–] CraigC (8220) 2 years ago

It is lazy. It's the lowest hanging of fruit. They know they can't pass a ban. They know they're doomed at mid-terms. They're just trying to have the appearance of doing "something". Even if they know it has a good chance of getting thrown out later. Democrats are all about appearances. No substance whatsoever.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17455) 2 years ago

They deflect blame a lot too.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56856) 2 years ago

It's an attempt to prevent them from obtaining a gun at a young age where they become gun obsessed by the time they're adults.

reply

[–] bjensen4 (1281) 2 years ago

Then they join the military at 17 with parental permission and get issued a gun.

reply

[–] Rorikon (17888) 2 years ago

That's before the trend started with 21 and younger. Used to be older. It's the easiest solution and I wish they just did a trial first instead of making it permanent. 6-10 year trial.

reply

[–] Grimace788 (267) 2 years ago

Most mass shooters continue to be people over 21. There have been a few high-profile cases recently where the shooter was under 21, but overall they still tend to be older.

Also, how does raising the purchase age to 21 (either temporarily or permanently) work constitutionally? The California Supreme Court has already ruled that raising the age to 21 is unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court would almost certainly rule the same way. Are they going to pass a constitutional amendment to raise the gun purchasing age to 21?

If they did a trial, what would be the end game? Obviously if adults under 21 have their right to buy guns taken away then we will see a reduction in mass shootings by people under 21. There would however still be an epidemic of people over 21 carrying out mass shootings just like there is today. After the trial there would be calls to raise the age to 25, 30, 40.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11758) 2 years ago

It’s doesn’t handle anything and it wouldn’t do anything but make the Democrat mental midgets feel good for 5 seconds and give their slave masters something to run on besides their massive failure this time around.

And in the next election cycle after 2 years of ignoring (gun control/student loans/abortion/the economy/minimum wage) these topics will once again be brought to the forefront so the Democrats can distract from their intellectual bankruptcy.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

I have a very simple solution to gun violence: JUST ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE!!! The problem is Diaper Joe and the DemoKKKrats don’t want to because it would hurt them politically, instead they just want to disarm law abiding citizens. They have everything ass backwards as usual.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 2 years ago

Yeah, it's a weak idea, but the problem is that we, the country, want something to be done, but there is little that can really be done to target these people because we don't know who they are in advance, and on the other side are millions and millions of lawful gun owners who don't do stuff like this.

I think banning semi-automatic guns, and limiting clip size is a reasonable step. Keeping bolt-action, semi-automatic pistols and shotguns for home defense or self-protection is fair.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

[deleted]