age you can buy a gun

[tango]

Tango, you're conversing with someone who is likely just parroting the garbage corporate idiot box television they are addicted to. That's where those terms come from, pundits and opinion makers paid to push an agenda through their words, but the willingly hypnotized aren't even likely to know it consciously.

Possibly, but if there are other coherent ideas out there it doesn't hurt to listen to them.

Sometimes people parrot things they hear, like the idea that the AR-15 can fire "hundreds of rounds per minute" (which is laughable to anyone who has actually fired an AR-15). Sometimes people talk of grand ideas like "ban assault weapons" but then flounder when asked to define an assault weapon. If people have something useful to say that isn't just tubthumping there's little to lose by trying to draw out what they are thinking.

 

[psalms 91]

Here is some garbage for you, students and adults marching across the United States demanding some action on stopping this wanton slaughter and condemning the NRA and their stance on opposing any meaningful legislation and a nationwide march on Washing in March but of course I am sure the NRA slaves will write that off as well. I think they got a taste of what they are in for when the woman from the NRQA was booed resoundingly at a live meeting in Fla.

 

[Albion]

I wonder if changing the requirements to buy a gun would help with all the shootings? This kid who bought this AK-15 was 19 years old and purchased it legally. Yet, he can't buy alcohol. I wonder if raising the age to buy a gun to 21 would help? I think there should be classes for people who buy guns to take care of them properly. One thing we don'thear much of is how many kids die from just finding a gun in the home and playing with it and it accidentially discharging and killing someone. If guns and ammunition were stored separately under lock and key that wouldn't happen.

Of course, all of this stuff is just "feel good" legislation. The Sandy Hook shooter's guns were bought for him by his mother, and the number of AR-15s sold in Florida has soared just since the talk about gun confiscation has gotten going this week. In addition, the same people--the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists who are clamoring for gun confiscation on the promise that it will prevent school shootings--also want open borders that allow gun runners operating from Mexico to serve the illegal gun trade in the USA which, in case there is any doubt, would NOT be affected by any gun legislation limiting purchases by age or mental condition or anything else like that.

 

[NewCreation435]

Of course, all of this stuff is just "feel good" legislation. The Sandy Hook shooter's guns were bought for him by his mother, and the number of AR-15s sold in Florida has soared just since the talk about gun confiscation has gotten going this week. In addition, the same people--the Democrats/Liberals/Socialists who are clamoring for gun confiscation on the promise that it will prevent school shootings--also want open borders that allow gun runners operating from Mexico to serve the illegal gun trade in the USA which, in case there is any doubt, would NOT be affected by any gun legislation limiting purchases by age or mental condition or anything else like that.

Well, something needs to be done. The problem is getting worse.
It this area it seems like the police are taking the problem more seriously and pressing charges against kids that make threats.

 

[Albion]

Well, something needs to be done. The problem is getting worse.
It this area it seems like the police are taking the problem more seriously and pressing charges against kids that make threats.

Well, what about having armed guards in the schools? They have police officers in some inner-city schools already. And we take armed guards on airplanes and at major facilities visited by millions of people annually for granted. That seems to have done some good. For sure, the last brainchild of the Liberals--putting up signs outside the churches announcing to all passers-by that there are no guns on the premises didn't seem to deter the people intending to enter and start shooting! I have the feeling that if you are about to commit mass murder, you don't worry too much about being arrested for having a gun without permission.





.

 

[Josiah]

Maybe those in Congress should apply the same solution that Congress does: Rebuff a bad guy with a gun with good guys with guns. Been to the Capitol? It is an armed fortress. THAT is the solution those in Congress think best.... THAT is the solution it employs. THAT is the answer it thinks is best. Maybe it should encourage schools, etc., to do the best thing, too?

 

[tango]

Here is some garbage for you, students and adults marching across the United States demanding some action on stopping this wanton slaughter and condemning the NRA and their stance on opposing any meaningful legislation and a nationwide march on Washing in March but of course I am sure the NRA slaves will write that off as well. I think they got a taste of what they are in for when the woman from the NRQA was booed resoundingly at a live meeting in Fla.

Demanding "some action" is cheap unless specific action is suggested. It's all very well to demand that Something Must Be Done and then assume that Someone Else will figure out what needs to be done.

Of course for some "common sense" means nothing less than an outright ban on all guns and confiscation of all currently held guns. For others "common sense" means putting more guns in the hands of more law-abiding citizens to help stop things as soon as possible.

I wonder if the students marching care about the people who die on the roads as much as they care about people who die at the hands of gunmen.

Incidentally, from what I recall reading recently the Republicans are talking about treating an AR-15 as if it were a handgun while the Democrats are doing little more than repeating their call for a ban on assault weapons (while still apparently having little idea of just what the term "assault weapon" actually means)

 

[tango]

Well, something needs to be done. The problem is getting worse.
It this area it seems like the police are taking the problem more seriously and pressing charges against kids that make threats.

On average there are 10 times as many children killed in accidents while walking or bicycling to school, than there are children killed in shootings at school. It's just that their faces aren't all over the news and nobody demands that Something Must Be Done when a child is knocked off their bicycle.

 

[tango]

Well, what about having armed guards in the schools? They have police officers in some inner-city schools already. And we take armed guards on airplanes and at major facilities visited by millions of people annually for granted. That seems to have done some good. For sure, the last brainchild of the Liberals--putting up signs outside the churches announcing to all passers-by that there are no guns on the premises didn't seem to deter the people intending to enter and start shooting! I have the feeling that if you are about to commit mass murder, you don't worry too much about being arrested for having a gun without permission.
.

That's the thing - we protect politicians with men with guns. We protect celebrities with men with guns. We protect all sorts of things with men with guns. And then we think that a sign saying "gun free zone" will protect our children, and then call on men with guns when it all goes wrong.

Anyone thinking of doing something stupid with guns around the Capitol Building or the White House can be reasonably confident that men with guns will take them down very fast. Anyone thinking of doing something stupid with guns around a school can be reasonably confident that nobody will have the means to resist until the police show up.

 

[Stravinsk]

Well, something needs to be done. The problem is getting worse.
It this area it seems like the police are taking the problem more seriously and pressing charges against kids that make threats.

I have a feeling this person has me on ignore, but be that so or not I will reply.

If one looks at my first post in this thread, I cited statistics of gun murder to ownership of guns per so many thousands of people per country. I don't think anyone responded to it because it speaks for itself. The USA is way down on the list for murder with guns relevant to the amount of guns per population by country.

This apparently doesn't phase some people - as it shows that violence with guns is NOT directly proportional to ownership of them when put on a percentage basis comparing countries.


Further, this whole thread was started on a story (yet another one, sigh) that has holes in it just like Sandy Hook has holes in it (no pun intended). The gun at Sandy Hook? Same one. AR-15.

So what's banning a gun going to do? Someone who is intent on using one will just use another.

More restrictions? Higher ages? Don't be silly. Think about your logic. A kid will respect the law and not buy a specific gun to kill a bunch of people, UNTIL he reaches the legal age to buy one! Of course restrictions limit obvious availability, but there is always the black market and someone intent on murder is obviously not swayed by even basic law.

And what if guns were banned?

Banning guns won't eliminate them but even if it did it wouldn't stop violence or violent intent, nor does it deprive a homicidal person of the means to kill people. In fact, a gun is just about the most stupid way to go unless you want to be caught. If I were intent on killing a bunch of people in a building I'd opt for a bomb of some description, deadly gas, poison of the food or the water, certainly not a gun.

However, none of the above methods are useful for home and self protection. This is not a coincidence.

Dubious story, dubious thread - but I guess what it does do is provide a platform for some people to pontificate on and insinuate that anyone with a firearm for perfectly reasonable purposes is to be treated with suspicion, while they, the gun less, are not.

"Me tomb is shinier than yers, matie. I don't own a gun. You see, I am moral. But I'll approve of the military using them to shoot up a bunch of men, women and children in all kinds of areas simply because my government has convinced me that they are evil and we are good - and I'm gullible enough to believe that crap. "

 

[tango]

I have a feeling this person has me on ignore, but be that so or not I will reply.

If one looks at my first post in this thread, I cited statistics of gun murder to ownership of guns per so many thousands of people per country. I don't think anyone responded to it because it speaks for itself. The USA is way down on the list for murder with guns relevant to the amount of guns per population by country.

This apparently doesn't phase some people - as it shows that violence with guns is NOT directly proportional to ownership of them when put on a percentage basis comparing countries.


Further, this whole thread was started on a story (yet another one, sigh) that has holes in it just like Sandy Hook has holes in it (no pun intended). The gun at Sandy Hook? Same one. AR-15.

So what's banning a gun going to do? Someone who is intent on using one will just use another.

More restrictions? Higher ages? Don't be silly. Think about your logic. A kid will respect the law and not buy a specific gun to kill a bunch of people, UNTIL he reaches the legal age to buy one! Of course restrictions limit obvious availability, but there is always the black market and someone intent on murder is obviously not swayed by even basic law.

And what if guns were banned?

Banning guns won't eliminate them but even if it did it wouldn't stop violence or violent intent, nor does it deprive a homicidal person of the means to kill people. In fact, a gun is just about the most stupid way to go unless you want to be caught. If I were intent on killing a bunch of people in a building I'd opt for a bomb of some description, deadly gas, poison of the food or the water, certainly not a gun.

However, none of the above methods are useful for home and self protection. This is not a coincidence.

Dubious story, dubious thread - but I guess what it does do is provide a platform for some people to pontificate on and insinuate that anyone with a firearm for perfectly reasonable purposes is to be treated with suspicion, while they, the gun less, are not.

"Me tomb is shinier than yers, matie. I don't own a gun. You see, I am moral. But I'll approve of the military using them to shoot up a bunch of men, women and children in all kinds of areas simply because my government has convinced me that they are evil and we are good - and I'm gullible enough to believe that crap. "

This is much the same point as I make - the problem is the intent to harm rather than the specific tool chosen to harm/

If you want to kill a lot of people the most effective target is a place where lots of people gather in a confined space. If you want to walk away alive you need a timer so you have chance to escape before anything nasty happens. If you don't care whether or not you survive then far more avenues are open, and such a person is far more dangerous for that very reason. Hence it makes more sense to determine what causes people to reach that stage and catch them before they do, rather than fuss about the specific tools they use once they have already reached it.

It doesn't take a genius to turn regular household supplies into something very nasty. If you're a student at a high school with any form of access, however limited, to a chemistry lab then the chances are you can get your hands on materials to make something even nastier. It doesn't take a genius to rig up a crude timer. And if you're not worried about whether or not you even survive your attack the chances are you're not going to care about leaving a trail of digital footprints the FBI can follow after the fact, when it emerges that you spent a week online searching for all sorts of nasty recipes.

Perhaps restricting guns further might solve issues of people doing something stupid on impulse, even if only by delaying them slightly to improve the chances they'll give themselves away and get caught before pulling off whatever they have planned. But then unless someone already has access to a stockpile of weapons the chances are that's not going to make much difference anyway, not least because of the time it would take to acquire a small arsenal without getting busted in the process.

 

[psalms 91]

Bottom line is that finally people are not willing to allow the status quo to continue, loopholes such as private sales of guns and gun show s need regulated, better mental health, expanded background checks, banning AR-15 and any gun specifically designed for military use from the sale to individuals.

 

[tango]

Bottom line is that finally people are not willing to allow the status quo to continue, loopholes such as private sales of guns and gun show s need regulated, better mental health, expanded background checks, banning AR-15 and any gun specifically designed for military use from the sale to individuals.

It may look like that now but what's different to any of the previous incidences where people vowed it would be the last one, people vowed that it was "time for common sense" (needless to say nobody defined "common sense") and people vowed that it was "time something was done" (without any comment as to what should be done).

The private sale at gun shows loophole gets lots of press but really isn't the problem - that was discredited 20 years ago but still people parrot it as if it were fact. Background checks are all well and good but clearly aren't working, and generally when the government can't cope with something the answer isn't more government. Banning AR-15 rifles might be a good method of rabble-rousing but will achieve precisely nothing, as has been described many times in the thread.

My prediction - there will be lots of noise and in the end precious little will change.

 

[psalms 91]

It may look like that now but what's different to any of the previous incidences where people vowed it would be the last one, people vowed that it was "time for common sense" (needless to say nobody defined "common sense") and people vowed that it was "time something was done" (without any comment as to what should be done).

The private sale at gun shows loophole gets lots of press but really isn't the problem - that was discredited 20 years ago but still people parrot it as if it were fact. Background checks are all well and good but clearly aren't working, and generally when the government can't cope with something the answer isn't more government. Banning AR-15 rifles might be a good method of rabble-rousing but will achieve precisely nothing, as has been described many times in the thread.

My prediction - there will be lots of noise and in the end precious little will change.

I have a feeling that this time something will be done or else there will be people elected who will get something done with this

 

[tango]

I have a feeling that this time something will be done or else there will be people elected who will get something done with this

Maybe, maybe not. More or less the same words have been said every time someone does something silly with a gun. Sadly it seems nobody can propose a law that would stop someone who demonstrably doesn't care about obeying the law.

If legislation were all it took to stop things like this happening it would be easy - we could just make it illegal to shoot children at school.

 

[tango]

If nothing else there is a certain irony in seeing the people who have compared Trump to Hitler now wanting him to take guns away from the people.

 

[Pedrito]

I have not had the time to read all the Posts in detail, but am aware of references to mental health. Apologies if I am duplicating anything.


Two issues need to be addressed: responsibility, and reduction strategies.

==============================================================================================

Responsibility

First of all, as far as I am aware, the Antipodean countries (New Zealand and Australia) have had only one mass shooting each. (One too many, but only one.)

In both cases, the atrocity was committed by someone who had been mercilessly bullied while at school. I remember one of the former bullies who was interviewed after one of the massacres saying, “No matter how much we beat him up, he wouldn't cry.”

So who was responsible for those massacres? The “nasty” people who committed them, or the all-too-common “normal” people who mangled their minds?

(And even school rules are skewed against the bullied ones. Are you aware of that, and why it is so?)

Secondly, it appears to be not commonly acknowledged, but I have seen reports of prescription anti-depressant drugs actually promoting suicide and murderous behaviour; they can exacerbate (strongly worsen) the condition they are supposed to help relieve.

I have seen at least one recent USA occurrence linked to that effect, as well as a number of suicides. People who are feeling depressed (a not uncommon situation) become murderous and suicidal while they are being treated for the lesser problem.

Thirdly, some people are just hostile and aggressive by nature.

==============================================================================================

Reduction Strategies

There are three things that could be done to minimise the problem of mass shootings.

Unfortunately, none will be implemented.

1. Come down hard on bullying in schools. Very hard. And offer practical emotional support for the bullied.

2. Outlaw prescription anti-depressant drugs, and replace them with recognised natural therapies that have no detrimental side effects.

3. Implement compulsory annual personality tests for everyone over say, 12 years of age. Then ban people with suspect results, and the households to which they belong, from owning or possessing guns.

==============================================================================================

Of course, ensuring that guns don’t get into the hands of the inappropriate people anyway…


I suggest that age has little to do with the problem.

 

[psalms 91]

I agree wholehaeartedly with 1

 

[tango]

Reduction Strategies

There are three things that could be done to minimise the problem of mass shootings.

Unfortunately, none will be implemented.

1. Come down hard on bullying in schools. Very hard. And offer practical emotional support for the bullied.

The trouble is twofold with this idea.

Firstly, bullies are usually quite clever. At least clever enough to not bully people when teachers are watching. What can then happen is that the victim is pushed to the point they fight back only to be seen by a teacher and then the victim is treated as if they were the bully. The current social mentality that nobody is at fault for the things they do (unless they are a victim fighting back, in which case they are 100% responsible for the entirety of the situation) does little to help.

2. Outlaw prescription anti-depressant drugs, and replace them with recognised natural therapies that have no detrimental side effects.

Maybe some merit in this, although hard to see how it would survive massive lobbying by the large pharmaceutical companies.

3. Implement compulsory annual personality tests for everyone over say, 12 years of age. Then ban people with suspect results, and the households to which they belong, from owning or possessing guns.

Frankly I find it terrifying that anyone would consider this worthy of discussion. Mandatory personality tests? That sounds more like a precursor to mass incarceration than anything else. You know, lock up the wackos for the protection of everybody else. It's just that the definition of "wacko" would itself become a political football.

Just imagine a group of people sitting in a circle talking to someone who anybody can clearly see is not there. Is this a group of people who are mentally in charge of their faculties? Is this a group of people who can be trusted to distinguish what is real from what is not, when they clearly don't see that the person to whom they are talking is not present? How does one objectively define whether this group is a bunch of lunatics, or a group of religious people gathering to pray to their chosen deity?

Of course, ensuring that guns don’t get into the hands of the inappropriate people anyway..

I suggest that age has little to do with the problem.[/color]

The trouble is that you're still focusing on guns. It's a very western malaise, to endlessly focus on potentially dangerous items and not on dangerous people. In the hands of a dangerous person just about anything turns into a weapon. In the hands of a law-abiding person things are less dangerous. I have a brace of kitchen knives that are very sharp but I don't go around stabbing people with them. If you gave me a fully automatic rifle that took strips of bullets rather than clips of bullets, and if you gave me hundreds of rounds of ammunition, I wouldn't suddenly develop the urge to go and shoot people with it. If you gave me an attack helicopter I wouldn't decide to attack the nearest city with it. If you gave me a Stinger missile I wouldn't shoot down commercial aircraft with it.

On the other hand a person minded to harm others will harm others with whatever tools are available. It might be a gun, it might be a knife, it might be a rock, it might be a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, it would be whatever they could get their hands on. And unless you're going to follow the "ban it" mentality to the level the UK government did and maybe go even further, you're never going to stop violence.

.... all of which leads back to the question of seeking to understand why people look to cause harm to others rather than fussing about their weapon of choice once they already reached that stage.

 

[Pedrito]

1. Actually, I was wrong. I had forgotten about another major shoot-up in Australia some years ago.

2. I thoroughly agree that the “solutions” I mentioned lack an element of practicality. That’s why I said, “Unfortunately, none will be implemented.” And I mentioned guns because that was a consideration in the topic.

3. With respect to bullying, a few things can be considered.

a) Many teachers (most teachers?) couldn’t care less if kids are being bullied. They probably enjoyed picking on weaker kids to some degree when they themselves were young. So who do they end up aligning with, psychologically?

b) As was pointed out, it is often the kid that finally defends himself or herself that gets into trouble.

c) Much of the time it’s even worse in fact. Bullies tend to act in concert, like a gang. So with the others around, one picks on the victim. If they are discovered fighting, both get a black mark. Next time, a different member picks on the victim. They get one black mark each. Who ends up with the most black marks and gets into big trouble? And when the gang testifies that the victim started a fight, who is going to believe the victim? And even if the truth is known, what teacher is going to side with someone who is generally weak and despised?

d) Not so long ago in my area, one kid was being repeatedly attacked. The school did nothing, even though it was well aware of the situation. Finally the kid could not take any more. He brought a knife to school in self defence. He had no intention of using it. He just showed it to keep the bullies at bay.

The police were called. The kid was treated like a criminal and hauled off. He was suspended from school. The bullies were treated as victims and offered psychological counselling.

Could anyone feign wonder if that traumatised, physically and mentally abused kid ends up doing something anti-social later in life? The answer is Yes – the rest of society; the rest of society (with the odd exception) would tut-tut and blame that person; how dare that person have such a deformed perspective of people like “us”?

And the bullies? They could well and up as pillars of that same society – the advancement to senior levels in most environments is facilitated by squashing weaker individuals on the way up.

==============================================================================================

And now for the lighter side.

If you gave me an attack helicopter I wouldn't decide to attack the nearest city with it.

I’d crash trying to fly it.

If you gave me a Stinger missile I wouldn't shoot down commercial aircraft with it.

I’d miss.


I used to think that if I kept looking long enough, I’d find something I was good at.