I'm kicking around another idea on how to prevent guns from being sold to dangerous people. Earlier I said that it would be a good idea to inform more people that are close to those buying the weapons. Maybe require two people close to a gun buyer, to endorse their purchase. If I was to want to buy an AR-15 and 1000 rounds... I would actually be required to have 2 other people with me, that are a wife, son, daughter, mother, father, brother, sister, employer... all adults of course, to vouch for my intentions, and go through background checks as well. Co-buyers required. I'm sure something could be called out on it, but I wouldn't mind going through it.

I'm not 100% against stricter rules to purchasing a gun, but in some cases it seems the rules we currently have aren't even being 100% enforced. It doesn't bother me as my record is clean and I can pass a background no problem. When I bought my first gun, I used my military ID, Texas DL, and had an FBI background check done within an hour. Problem seems to be people are slipping by these background checks WITH a prior history. For example, the Texas gunmen who entered a church was able to pass just as easy as I was. Except, he had a domestic violence charge from the Air Force that was never reported to the national database. Just my take, we gotta fix the current system before we add more.

 

What I am 100% against is restricting qualified individuals from purchasing items, or having harsher backgrounds with no added benefit.

If I can pass a strict background, mental evaluation, and even have referrals as you suggested, I should be allowed to conceal carry across state lines. If I can be trusted in one state, why not the next? 

 

 

As for the 4 officers refusing to enter the building, I'm split on it. I can't say I endorse his actions as a person. I served with guys that did amazing things, well beyond what their "training" would entail. I can't understand the idea of standing outside the school, hearing gun shots realizing every time that gun goes off, there is a kid practically being executed. All while I have a side arm, and can potentially do something. Could he save all those kids? No. But he might've saved a few. A few less funerals. A few less parent's having to bury their child. It is one of those things, where training and protocol go against moral values.

 

On the flip side, we have the lack of police training. Police are nowhere near as training for these situations as SWAT, other tactical units, or even your combat arms military. I would NEVER force someone without tracking to go into an active shooter situation. A buddy of mine teaches self-defense (armed and unarmed), as well as survival information to people. One thing he always stresses is "Don't try to be a hero." I would never expect someone with no or inadequate training to randomly string into action in the middle of a mall if shots rang out. 

 

I don't see this as these officers failing the kids. I see it as their entire department failing them, and in turn, failing these families. I see it as these officers failing themselves. They have to return home at the end of the day, realizing they had a side arm, could have potentially done something. The department failed to train these guys properly to respond. The department failed to have proper protocols in place. FOUR officers staged outside, and protocol didn't exist for at least two to conduct an entry? At the same time, not one of these four officers realized this, yet an off-duty officer in shorts put just a vest on and grabbed an extra weapon and went in. It's a moral issue at that point. While we, again, can't force those guys to enter a situation like that. I fully agree with them resigning, I believe the sheriff needs to be replaced, and I sure as hell would never want one of them watching my six.

Our local sheriff department here put an internal memo out letting officers know if there is an active shooter situation, and they are not comfortable entering the building, to talk to their supervisor and the Sheriff will reassign them. There are expectations of a public service officer that seemed to fail in this situation. It's a iffy subject because there is no true answer. It's a mix of issues. It's a moral issue, a training issue, a protocol issue, and more. With all that going on, people expect me to believe we should put 100% faith in our government agencies to operate properly?

I'm not 100% against stricter rules to purchasing a gun, but in some cases it seems the rules we currently have aren't even being 100% enforced. It doesn't bother me as my record is clean and I can pass a background no problem. When I bought my first gun, I used my military ID, Texas DL, and had an FBI background check done within an hour. Problem seems to be people are slipping by these background checks WITH a prior history. For example, the Texas gunmen who entered a church was able to pass just as easy as I was. Except, he had a domestic violence charge from the Air Force that was never reported to the national database. Just my take, we gotta fix the current system before we add more.

.

Definatly, but you will find both opponents and allies on both sides for a more all encompassing database(s). Note that it would mean more regulations towards gun sellers (be it professional or not).

.

What I am 100% against is restricting qualified individuals from purchasing items, or having harsher backgrounds with no added benefit.

If I can pass a strict background, mental evaluation, and even have referrals as you suggested, I should be allowed to conceal carry across state lines. If I can be trusted in one state, why not the next?

.

You have this already, it can become this.

 

 

I'm not 100% against stricter rules to purchasing a gun, but in some cases it seems the rules we currently have aren't even being 100% enforced.

You nailed it. Existing law failed on every level. Progressives first reaction is to excuse the failure, politicize the tragedy, exploit the victims, amplify the anger, use the children, blame everyone except themselves, and smear anyone who disagrees. Everyone will fight for a couple weeks, and when the ratings start collapsing, the lamestream media will move on to some other distraction.

 

They might try enforcing the current law. Raising the age to buy guns wouldn't do anything without raising the age of majority, and prohibiting the right of possession... which would be unconstitutional. Let's fight over Obamacare... it's fun to fight over laws that everyone knows is already unconstitutional.

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

I will just sat here and go back to a post on the first page talking about the fact that owning guns at home are rare, giving switzerland in the list of examples.

 

In switzerland, it is part of the history that all citizents are soliders able to defend the country, today, after having a military service, they have duty to be able for mobilisation, from 18 years old to max 50 years old. All males are concerned. And they have to keep their personal material at home to keep it in order. It contains guns.

So theorically, there schould be arround a gun per home in switzerland.

 

And in France, gun-wearing license exist but is made to disencourage people as it costs a lot to maintain in order, and laws about using them are very stricts.

I remember two different cases :

- one of a jewelry, where the seller shot a thief walking toward him and get inprisoned because it wasn't shure that the thief was willing to kill him. (as he had only a gun-wearing license and not a gun-firing license, and wasn't in the "I shoot to save my life" case)

 

As I'm not belonging to the USA weapon wearing debate, I hope I won't bother anyone posting this.

 

(I tried to produce short sentences explaining complex things, say it, if it is unreadable or barely understandable)

- one of a guy shooting a thief at night in his home and called for "right to protect home and goods security" and wasn't charged.

In switzerland, it is part of the history that all citizents are soliders able to defend the country, today, after having a military service, they have duty to be able for mobilisation, from 18 years old to max 50 years old. All males are concerned. And they have to keep their personal material at home to keep it in order. It contains guns. So theorically, there schould be arround a gun per home in switzerland.

This is true... it comes with neutrality, and being surrounded by countries that have a history of war. I have heard a similar policy exists in Israel. They too are surrounded with hostility. An armed population is not a strange phenomenon. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

 

 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

 

that was a pleasure !   

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

 

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

 

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

 

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

 

Handguns are easily more concealed. I know in order to conceal carry in Texas, you need a CCL. That involves classes on the laws, target shooting, and a license fee. The laws, to my knowledge, actually do not ban 18-20 year olds from having handguns, but banning them from buying from federally licensed dealers. They can still get it as a gift from their parents, or buy it from a private seller. If you're in the military, you can actually buy from a federal dealer and get a CCL under 21 as well here in Texas. The reasoning for the age differences though, honestly. I have no clue.. I want to believe it has to do with the concealing factor.

Could it come from Civil War, as states who suffered or feared the most the war, have set their age limit on 18 instead of 21 ?

 

Maybe states with lower or upper age had an election with a senator proposing to increase/decrease the minimal age to buy, in order to guarantee a majority ?

 

a story like : a state sets its age to vote on 18 (getting more electors), then a senator get 18+ votes proposing them to access to "federal dealer" or something like that ?

If you go back far enough in US history, most state gun control laws all had to do with restricting the ability for immigrants and freed former slaves to own firearms. So that is where conditions like age, fees, and licensing came into existence.

If you go back far enough in US history, most state gun control laws all had to do with restricting the ability for immigrants and freed former slaves to own firearms. So that is where conditions like age, fees, and licensing came into existence.

 

No a lot of the current law in the USA is patterned around Regan era laws, or is outright from that period. 

 

Which you know, very similar desire as the post civil war stuff, but occurred rather more recently.

 

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

 

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

 

Buying a gun and possessing a gun are two different things. This is the main reason an age restriction on purchasing a gun will not stop mass shootings. Mass shootings are planned out months in advance. The number of people killed with semi-automatic rifles is a fraction of those killed by handguns. There is an age restriction and a waiting period for handguns to curb the impulse murder... to make it harder to get their hands on a gun when someone is mad enough at people to kill. The logic is, several days later, cooler minds prevail. But gun stores and gun shows are not the fastest way to get a gun. My father had 30+ on display... if I wanted to kill, I would have had no problem getting the guns to do so. So yes... it's the brain of the person, not the tool.

 

Banning a person over 18 (majority age) from "possessing" a firearm, would be unconstitutional. It may be any age... I don't know... the Constitution is very powerful. There is an age restriction of 21 to buy alcohol... but there is no such thing as a constitutional right to buy booze, and it hasn't stopped kids from drinking.

 

We hear constantly about the number of people killed by guns, but we hear nothing about the number killed with good reason. I would include suicide as good reason... a suicide would cause grief on family and friends, but if someone wants to die, and uses a gun to commit suicide, that should be listed as the proper use of a gun. I would like to see the breakdown of proper use verses innocent victims. That might change the way people see this issue... and if anyone believes there is no good reason to kill with a gun, well you're not living in the realm of reality.

I feel concerned by the current conversation as it start to going round (I feel) you talk about age limit from the first page.

Many things have been said. I think you are trying to convince one-another. Well... it doesn't seem to work, then have a poll, vote for IRON's position about minimum age required to purchase weapons ! ^^

 

Or I may try to show why you doesn't succed to convice one-another ?   With math !

 "During the 2013–14 school year, colleges and universities are expected  to award

943,000 associate’s degrees;

1.8 million bachelor's degrees; 

778,000 master'sdegrees;

177,000 doctor's degrees"

 

total : 3,7 million person each years.

4 killing spree a year (according to a post here)

 

So : there ar less than 00.00 % of people causing a killing spree as teenage or young adult.

 

I would say that a probability of 00.00001% (precisely) isn't a porbability that can count as a cause.

the problem isn't age.

As far as killing spree doesn't happen at office (as far as I know), It might be due to certain conditions directed linked to spécific persons in their environment.

conditions that would have more than 00.00% chances to be the issue.

 

Like treatment of other students, family environment, or other stuffs.  There are enough case to have good statistics.

Unfortunately everything has ended when we know we should have studied the case : so no mors statistics. (or complete ones)

 

And !  If  any cause or a spécific profile would have been found with those statistics, they would certainly concern private life or things that wouldn't be lawable (does that word exist ?) without higly restraining freedom or private life !

 

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

 

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

 

They account for the vast majority of murders because you can easily hide them. Rifles are good enough until people have become more mature as adults. 

Bill Maher and I have different views on many issues, but once in a while he surprises me. This is kind of off topic, but related... and this happens to be the thread getting the attention lately, so I'll place it here. Bill and I sometimes agree on things... rare, but it happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=271&v=UL67FQ_uGBg

 

 

We shouldn't raise the age to own a gun. At 18 you should have the right to make all your own adult decisions. Including buying a gun, voting, screwing whoever you want and even drinking. The 21 year age limit for owning a handgun I suppose I can agree with.

 

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

 

They account for the vast majority of murders because you can easily hide them. Rifles are good enough until people have become more mature as adults. 

 

 

I didn't say I couldn't understand the reasoning, I said it is inconsistant with this "2nd means guns for all (who want)" attitude of the US.

 

 

Bill Mahr and I have different views on many issues, but once in a while he surprises me. This is kind of off topic, but related... and this happens to be the thread getting the attention lately, so I'll place it here. Bill and I sometimes agree on things... rare, but it happens.

 

You will find nearly everyone agreeing on this, but also nearly everyone likes a juicy story or a small rant of their own. It is best to keep a clear line between news and everything else. Heck one of the examples (Red Sparrow pic) got put in our national broadcasters newssite "and alse this" section, meant for obvious lighter/non-news content, plus it only got attention cause there is a belgian in the picture .

 

as for his "trolls go apeshit", someone should explain to him what "trolls" are

He is right though, Buzzfeed, HuffPo and Salon really are complete clickbait trash. At least Buzzfeed is having financial troubles last I heard, so here’s hoping it goes down the toilet soon.

He is right though, Buzzfeed, HuffPo and Salon really are complete clickbait trash. At least Buzzfeed is having financial troubles last I heard, so here’s hoping it goes down the toilet soon.

 

 

Buzzfeed,

 

 

Surprisingly. no. Buzzfeed gets a ton of its funding from clickbaity silliness, but it's one of the few places that do actual for real investigative journalism.  After The Wall Street Journal and a few other papers took the weed whacker to their investigative teams, buzzfeed turned around and hired a bunch of them. 

 

So they've put out

 

really

 

really

 

really

 

high quality work. They swung a pulitzer citation last year and only lost out because it was for international reporting and the NYT kicked the shit out of everything last year. They ouytihy have multiple  Pulitzer prize winners on staff. 

 

The clickbaity derp and lifestyle stuff is buzzfeed's solution to the funding problem facing journalism. Even if you don't like it, it is a hell of a lot better than some of the other "solutions" we've seen. And whatever else can be said about buzzfeed, it's been pretty good at keeping a bright line between the clickbait fluff and the real work, rather than trying to disguise the fluff as real work .

 

Personally I'll take 100 articles about "You won't believe how cute these smol bunnies are!" or whatever if it funds real journalism.  Sure as hell beats anything  Bill Maher has done, let alone of the trash rags like the sun/the independent/NY post etc. 

To ba fair, I don't think Maher claims he does journalism, he is a commentator. The big issue is the people tiptoeing the line between journalism and commentating. (ignoring the blatant hacks who should be clear to anyone with half a brain that they are commentators with very select "reporting")

To ba fair, I don't think Maher claims he does journalism, he is a commentator. The big issue is the people tiptoeing the line between journalism and commentating. (ignoring the blatant hacks who should be clear to anyone with half a brain that they are commentators with very select "reporting")

Bill Maher is a comedian... he uses his political views for the basis of his entertainment. He had a similar show called "Politically Incorrect" in the late 90's, early 2000's, that was cancelled after he claimed the 9-11 terrorists were not cowards, that they were actually very brave to fly planes into buildings. A lot of people were very angry with him about that... thought he was glamorizing their actions.

 

He is a Progressive to his core.

As a gun owning American in the army reserves I can tell you that there are fuckers in the military (some soft MOS's mind you) that I don't even trust with weapons :/

 

I'm all for responsible gun ownership but there are multiple laws I would vote to change. Namely requiring some base level safety course and a digitally maintained and searchable database of firearm sales...

 

on a side note I'm really looking forward to my suppressor for my mcx virtus in .300 blackout

So I was just looking through the news...

 

 

And saw that Florida just raised the age limit to purchase firearms....

 

 

And Trump supports this. This is unacceptable. We cannot allow this unconstitutional idiocy to keep spreading. To the guillotine with these criminal politicians!

A couple lawsuits have already been filed on the grounds it is Unconstitutional. Honestly I have no clue which way the courts will side on it. I can bet that the ATF has already said, go ahead and deny a sale to whoever you want for whatever reason you want. That the individual FFL is given immense discretion and can have whatever policies they want. But it could be possible this gets over turned in a Federal Court. If it goes to the Supreme Court the 21 age limit might very well stay. We have to remember that Justice Roberts is a bit of a wild card and could side with the liberal Judges on this one.

And saw that Florida just raised the age limit to purchase firearms....

 

And Trump supports this. This is unacceptable. We cannot allow this unconstitutional idiocy to keep spreading. To the guillotine with these criminal politicians!

That is why I said this:

Now this just screams inconsistancy, what was even the reasoning to make handguns 21?

That and Trump has always been a wildcard, heck he swayed so much on this one topic already he puts palmtree's to shame...