|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 01 2018 01:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
By the end of basic training they will be more qualified to own a gun than the people you guys want to restrict it to based on age. That's why it doesn't pass the smell test. Hence why I recommended that they use a different avenue, perhaps through their training facility (i.e., the military). That way no one is saying that young soldiers can't buy guns. It would streamline the rules and regulations for stores quite easily.
So then that would be the exemption I was talking about. I'm sure you could get the military/NRA on board with the military having to buy a bunch more guns in order to stock this type of a program.
|
On March 01 2018 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 01:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 01 2018 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
By the end of basic training they will be more qualified to own a gun than the people you guys want to restrict it to based on age. That's why it doesn't pass the smell test. Hence why I recommended that they use a different avenue, perhaps through their training facility (i.e., the military). That way no one is saying that young soldiers can't buy guns. It would streamline the rules and regulations for stores quite easily. So then that would be the exemption I was talking about. I'm sure you could get the military/NRA on board with the military having to buy a bunch more guns in order to stock this type of a program.
Ah okay then. I was thinking in terms of regulations for sporting good stores like Dick's, rather than in terms of regulations against all 18-21 year olds. All good 
|
On March 01 2018 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
By the end of basic training they will be more qualified to own a gun than the people you guys want to restrict it to based on age. That's why it doesn't pass the smell test.
The difference is that on base and while deployed they are surrounded 24/7 by other armed police and soldiers, not to mention constant supervision from commanding officers. The argument is weak at best - although I dont doubt its ability to motivate en mass.
EDIT:
Fell into the same trap as above. nvm
|
Also, service members receive a wide array of skills during basic training and through their roles in the military. There are few cases where they get to bypass parts or all of the basic licensing process for those same jobs in the private sector. They also don’t get to buy a beer at age 18 with their military ID. There is no reason to treat guns as this magical thing, especially when a private company is setting its own policy.
|
On March 01 2018 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
By the end of basic training they will be more qualified to own a gun than the people you guys want to restrict it to based on age. That's why it doesn't pass the smell test.
and I'm sure there are people out there who have been racing for years before they were ever allowed to take a driving test or get a license.
Do we have exemptions for those people to get a license earlier than 18 (in Germany) or 16 (in the US) ?
I get what you're trying to get across but I just don't think that's a thing we consider with anything else either
|
On March 01 2018 01:31 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
By the end of basic training they will be more qualified to own a gun than the people you guys want to restrict it to based on age. That's why it doesn't pass the smell test. The difference is that on base and while deployed they are surrounded 24/7 by other armed police and soldiers, not to mention constant supervision from commanding officers. The argument is weak at best - although I dont doubt its ability to motivate en mass.
Besides the fact that they can often be sent out in very small groups or patrol/watchtowers in pairs and face situations in which they have to decide whether to use their guns far more frequently, and being more practiced by the time they've come back, that's not really the point (for me).
It's that they are simply more capable than the people who would be able to buy the guns. That's not really a complicated thing to understand I think.
On March 01 2018 01:40 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
By the end of basic training they will be more qualified to own a gun than the people you guys want to restrict it to based on age. That's why it doesn't pass the smell test. and I'm sure there are people out there who have been racing for years before they were ever allowed to take a driving test or get a license. Do we have exemptions for those people to get a license earlier than 18 (in Germany) or 16 (in the US) ? I get what you're trying to get across but I just don't think that's a thing we consider with anything else either
They are allowed to buy a car and drive it on their own/private property though. The license is so you can share public roads.
|
I honestly don't even get the argument or why this is an actual issue.
During Military service your gun is a tool that you are allowed to carry and use - its part of your job. In your civilian life it just plain isn't and a totally diffrent set of rules apply.
|
On March 01 2018 01:52 Velr wrote:
I honestly don't even get the argument or why this is an actual issue.
During Military service your gun is a tool that you are allowed to carry and use - its part of your job. In your civilian life it just plain isn't and a totally diffrent set of rules apply.
It's not about the rules of using a gun while in the military (though they are part of learning weapon/muzzle discipline), it's about your proficiency and capability to own/operate a weapon vs the civilian population that would have access.
|
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here.
|
On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here.
Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass.
|
On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here.
Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian.
The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway.
On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass.
Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way.
|
On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way.
yeah but I don't see why having a slightly different set of rules is so weird to you (and Danglars I guess) because after all the licensing is a bit different when it comes to trucks/cars and guns.
Like I already said the license for cars isn't something you get earlier just because you have expierence in driving a car as a kid who grew up racing go-karts and maybe "normal" cars as a teen.
Yes, you CAN buy a car without having a license (can you actually? I know you're allowed to drive on your own property without having a license but people check for my license when I want to buy a car over here  ) and drive it on your own property but I'm kind of fine with placing that check on the purchase with guns rather than a license because you don't have to pass a test for guns in the first place.
If you'd be allowed to drive cars on public streets without a driving license, just have it done by agelimit alone, you'd be in the same boat again. But that's not the case, so changing it a little to fit for guns that don't require a license in the first place and placing that check on the purchase of it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
On March 01 2018 02:58 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way. yeah but I don't see why having a slightly different set of rules is so weird to you (and Danglars I guess) because after all the licensing is a bit different when it comes to trucks/cars and guns. Like I already said the license for cars isn't something you get earlier just because you have expierence in driving a car as a kid who grew up racing go-karts and maybe "normal" cars as a teen. Yes, you CAN buy a car without having a license (can you actually? I know you're allowed to drive on your own property without having a license but people check for my license when I want to buy a car over here ) and drive it on your own property but I'm kind of fine with placing that check on the purchase with guns rather than a license because you don't have to pass a test for guns in the first place. If you'd be allowed to drive cars on public streets without a driving license, just have it done by agelimit alone, you'd be in the same boat again. But that's not the case, so changing it a little to fit for guns that don't require a license in the first place and placing that check on the purchase of it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I'm not really sure what your point is? I think you might be heading toward the right approach to this which would be requiring people be more competent about responsible gun ownership before they own one rather than placing an arbitrary age limit and thinking you solved something.
EDIT: I feel like I should mention that there is currently no federal law about how old one has to be to buy a long gun from a private seller.
|
On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way.
yes, so in both instances the minor would not be able to buy themselves something they typically would be able to while deployed//irrespective of their ability to enlist. depending on which side of the argument you’d prefer. in neither instance is the argument compelling.
and your argument in this last post about arbitrary age limits is similarly not compelling for all the same reasons it’s not compelling for every other life experience that comes with an arbitrary age delineation.
|
On March 01 2018 03:20 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way. yes, so in both instances the minor would not be able to buy something they typically would be able to while deployed//irrespective of their ability to enlist. depending on which side of the argument you’d prefer. in neither instance is the argument compelling. and your argument in this last post about arbitrary age limits is similarly not compelling for all the same reasons it’s not compelling for every other life experience that comes with an arbitrary age delineation.
His argument is that the parents can buy the drink (or the car in the example of the racer who isn't allowed to drive on the street yet) and no one would forbid parents to give their 14 year old kid alcohol on their private property.
Analogue the parents could buy the gun and no one would forbid parents to let their 14 year old kid use it on their private property.
Hence making guns illegal to sell to people below a certain age is just as pointless as making alcohol illegal to sell to people below a certain age. After all all this prevents is law abiding citizens from drinking/shooting in public while criminals will still do it anyway.
|
On March 01 2018 03:26 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 03:20 brian wrote:On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way. yes, so in both instances the minor would not be able to buy something they typically would be able to while deployed//irrespective of their ability to enlist. depending on which side of the argument you’d prefer. in neither instance is the argument compelling. and your argument in this last post about arbitrary age limits is similarly not compelling for all the same reasons it’s not compelling for every other life experience that comes with an arbitrary age delineation. His argument is that the parents can buy the drink (or the car in the example of the racer who isn't allowed to drive on the street yet) and no one would forbid parents to give their 14 year old kid alcohol on their private property. Analogue the parents could buy the gun and no one would forbid parents to let their 14 year old kid use it on their private property. Hence making guns illegal to sell to people below a certain age is just as pointless as making alcohol illegal to sell to people below a certain age. After all all this prevents is law abiding citizens from drinking/shooting in public while criminals will still do it anyway.
i understood. and yet the drinking age remains 21, and accordingly there’s no reason the legal age to buy guns shouldn’t also be. the inherent benefit of this is that it gives the adult some limited control over the gun use of the minor. in this instance the criminal minor cannot legally purchase his own murder weapon.
i do agree that the net results aren’t an enormous benefit(though personally i’d happily take any ‘benefit.’) My point simply was that a complaint like ‘let a minor use a weapon over seas and then restrict his freedoms at home while being more capabale than his elders’ isn’t a good argument against a higher age limit. just as it is not in these many other areas of arbitrary age limits.
|
We could apply that logic to explosive too. Blowing up private property and people is illegal already. So why make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own dynamite based on age or licencing?
|
On March 01 2018 03:20 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way. yes, so in both instances the minor would not be able to buy something they typically would be able to while deployed//irrespective of their ability to enlist. depending on which side of the argument you’d prefer. in neither instance is the argument compelling. and your argument in this last post about arbitrary age limits is similarly not compelling for all the same reasons it’s not compelling for every other life experience that comes with an arbitrary age delineation.
I think you guys might have a compelling argument for possessing a gun in public but the arguments are compelling enough to render the federal drinking age more of a guideline in many states and allow kids under 16 to drive.
My point is if I was selling my last gun and had to be responsible for what happened with it and I had a choice between a 19yo service member or any idiot over 21 I'd probably pick the service member (provided we gave them adequate mental healthcare)
As it stands you guys would sell it to any idiot over 21, that strikes me as more ridiculous than not raising the age and requiring competency.
Also another crazy idea, don't send armed people under 21 into warzones in the first place.
|
On March 01 2018 03:29 Plansix wrote:
We could apply that logic to explosive too. Blowing up private property and people is illegal already. So why make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own dynamite based on age or licencing?
Now we're talking!
I understood the argument as anti-any-age-limits-for-anything. By extension why should we limit the sale/ownership of anything, since law abiding citizens wouldn't think of using it illegally anyway. All these limits just prevent access to something that criminals have access to anyway.
If increased supply of guns doesn't cause more gun violence then I don't see how increased supply of dynamite could cause an increased amount of dynamite explosions.
|
On March 01 2018 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 03:20 brian wrote:On March 01 2018 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Not sure what you mean, but again, drinking is something you don't have to be 21 to do and in several states your parent can buy you a drink at a restaurant/give it to you on private property or in Texas you can just buy it yourself if they can see your parent/gaurdian. The only reason the drinking age was moved to 21 in many states in the first place was for access to federal money for interstates anyway. On March 01 2018 02:37 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2018 02:32 brian wrote:
it’s not a compelling enough argument when it comes to the drinking age, i can’t see why it should be more compelling here. Or licencing for commercial trucks. My brother could drive 20 ton heavy equipment truck at AIT training at age 19, but still had to get his commercial driver’s license like every other person with no special expectations. The test was just easier for him to pass. Commercial truck licensing would be more akin to a CCW or something, not simply buying a gun. With that you're getting into all sorts of union and other stuff though so it falls apart in more than one way. yes, so in both instances the minor would not be able to buy something they typically would be able to while deployed//irrespective of their ability to enlist. depending on which side of the argument you’d prefer. in neither instance is the argument compelling. and your argument in this last post about arbitrary age limits is similarly not compelling for all the same reasons it’s not compelling for every other life experience that comes with an arbitrary age delineation. I think you guys might have a compelling argument for possessing a gun in public but the arguments are compelling enough to render the federal drinking age more of a guideline in many states and allow kids under 16 to drive. My point is if I was selling my last gun and had to be responsible for what happened with it and I had a choice between a 19yo service member or any idiot over 21 I'd probably pick the service member (provided we gave them adequate mental healthcare) As it stands you guys would sell it to any idiot over 21, that strikes me as more ridiculous than not raising the age and requiring competency. Also another crazy idea, don't send armed people under 21 into warzones in the first place.
i don’t know if any of this is meant sarcastically or not, only because if i’ve understood correctly you seem against raising an arbitrary age limit, but i’m definitely for all of these ideas. I know i’m in the incredibly minority thinking taking as many guns off the street as possible is a great thing. so any restriction is a good one. i’ve never been asked before but thinking on it for all of 2 minutes i’m certainly not against raising the age for enlistment either.
i too would prefer on a case by case basis giving a gun to a qualified person if for any reason i absolutely had to give someone a gun. but unfortunately legislation doesn’t work on the case by case basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
