Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple: Age is "competence-based" whereas race and religion are not. Why don't we sell tobacco, booze, and porn to children? The point it is to keep kids and others safe and not expose them to age-inappropriate stuff. I don't think any sane person would want a four-year-old child playing with a gun. The basic logic extends to background checks. Some people have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with guns. Felons and people suffering sever emotional illness, for example. Consider the teen in Vermont who applauded the Florida shootings and was apparently planning to engage in a school shooting. In terms of straight-up common sense, no sane person really wants him to go out an buy a bunch of guns.
But there isn't really any evidence that age is competence based. There are plenty of incompetent people of legal age...so mere age alone, vis-a-vis the age differentials created by this discriminatory policy, is not determinant of any kind of competence. Not for physical competency, and not for mental competency. Causation does not imply correlation and if it did, then on the basis of such a theory, we would expect to see some graduated distribution of the age of mass shootings, with the younger cohorts being the most likely and the older ones being the least likely. That is not the case.
Secondly, your argument is undermined by the fact that there are literally millions of examples of people his age and younger being competent to handle firearms. Throughout our nations history, people have been competently handling firearms from early ages, for hunting, for personal defense, and also in the service of this nation, which provides through Federal Law for the registration and conscription of persons younger than the plaintiff to bear arms in military conflict if ordered to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STL74
Then you should be fine with refusing to sell them to all white men based on being the most likely to commit a mass shooting.... If we hold a race or gender responsible for the actions of a few what’s fair is fair. Perhaps only women should own guns.
Mass shooters are more likely to be white but that is only because whites are still a majority of the nation. However, that isn't what you claimed.....you claimed that white men are more likely (than men of other races) to commit a mass shooting, and that is FALSE...in fact, white men are disproportionately UNDER-represented in mass shootings, meaning that as a percentage of the population, they are LESS likely than simple probability would dictate to commit a mass shooting.
So the question is, are YOU willing to let what's fair be fair? Based on the fact that blacks are disproportionately likely to commit homicide by gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Federally protected classes.
Which really probably shouldn't exist in the first place...but let's not that get in the way of a good argument. Also, thank you for pointing out the existence of this federal scheme to create protections based on arbitrary criteria; these are chosen solely to enable the agenda of "social progressives" through "social engineering" and actually have little or no rational basis for existence.
I am not proposing modifying this crazy arbitrary scheme in any way though. My question merely asks, since law and action based on arbitrary criteria is "writ large" in the body of existing federal law then why can't the same theories under which Affirmative Action laws exist be deployed to take guns from groups that are OVER-represented?
Because if the law says discrimination against "protected classes" is not permitted then carves out racially discriminatory space for affirmative action to benefit groups that are "under-represented" in some metric, why can it not be carved out for negative action against groups that are "over-represented" in the metrics of criminal or terrorist activity? Affirmative or negative action makes no apparent difference when it comes to the infringement of individual liberties in this country, as show by age discrimination and AA, so why shouldn't this franchise of infringement be applied to guns on racial and religious bases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noc
Lets not stop there and include legal age to drive, or buy alcohol, hell what about to VOTE!
All things in which age discrimination is legally protected, and which are all based on arbitrary criteria. So, if ensuring merit or competence were really what these laws were about, none of these discriminatory laws would exist. But that is not what the law is about. It is about broad generalizations and arbitrary cutoffs being applied uniformly so as to serve the greater public good, as opposed to the individual good and protecting personal liberties.
Hence, my question. Under the very same argument, why can guns not be prohibited to blacks, or Muslims? Broad generalizations based only on the fact that these groups are more likely to commit certain criminal acts. For blacks, homicide, and for Muslims, terrorism.
The argument for age-based restrictions is grounded in scientific evidence that the frontal lobe of adolescent brains, the part of the brain concerned with decision making, does not reach full maturity until a person is in their early to mid 20s.
There is no science that would conclusively say the same about the frontal lobes of people of a given race or religion.
This is the same reason insurance companies can charge teenage drivers more money. Statistics bear out teenagers are more prone to take actions that result in accidents.
Huge difference, race, religion and sexual orientation are relatively static. If you are younger restrictions are perfectly legal because everyone ages.
Religion and sexual orientation are not static at all, and are not immutable characteristics of a person, nor do they have any genetic component. In other words these are not heritable traits. Actually they are not traits at all. These are merely behaviors, or beliefs.
Age is of course, a constantly changing metric, but that's precisely why it is arbitrary. It doesn't tell you anything about a person's ability or trustworthiness or tendencies towards criminal behaviors. Age isn't a belief system. Just being a certain age doesn't demand or dictate that you adopt specific beliefs or attitudes about laws and society - there isn't any nexus to that.
So the only non-arbitrary criterion in that group is race.
Religion and sexual orientation are not static at all, and are not immutable characteristics of a person, nor do they have any genetic component. In other words these are not heritable traits. Actually they are not traits at all. These are merely behaviors, or beliefs.
Age is of course, a constantly changing metric, but that's precisely why it is arbitrary. It doesn't tell you anything about a person's ability or trustworthiness or tendencies towards criminal behaviors. Age isn't a belief system. Just being a certain age doesn't demand or dictate that you adopt specific beliefs or attitudes about laws and society - there isn't any nexus to that.
So the only non-arbitrary criterion in that group is race.
race is not a non-arbitrary criterion. Nkechi Amare Diallo, formerly known as Rachel Dolezal, is an example and there are some others I could name.
The argument for age-based restrictions is grounded in scientific evidence that the frontal lobe of adolescent brains, the part of the brain concerned with decision making, does not reach full maturity until a person is in their early to mid 20s.
There is no science that would conclusively say the same about the frontal lobes of people of a given race or religion.
That's only a very recent finding from within the last decade. Laws that discriminate based on age have been around FAR longer than this finding.
And such an argument is undermined by the plethora of laws which extend various privileges or impose various duties on people whose brains must by that finding be deemed "immature".
For example, 16 year olds can have sex (in some states), and drive, or be legally "emancipated" from their parents.
17 year olds can get a Private Pilot certificate.
18 year olds can vote and serve in the US armed forces.
21 year olds can be police officers.
Politician's brains must be the slowest to mature because you have to be 35 to be President.
But there isn't really any evidence that age is competence based.
Unlike virtually any other category, we generally make age restrictions based on general statistics and tradition. Based on brain development studies (and thousands of years of parental experience) we have good reason to think that children, in general, are not to be trusted with certain types of freedoms. In this case, the brains of teens are still developing in critical ways that make them impulsive. This is "in general" so, yes, there could be some teens who might be safer with guns than the average adult would be. But overall we still have good reasons for not letting kids drive, use tobacco, alcohol, etc., and guns simply fall in this general tradition. And, yes, some adults are irresponsible too, which is why gun laws are appropriate.
Presumably kids can use guns if their parent takes them out hunting or target shooting. But allowing them to buy guns and use them without supervision is a different matter.
In general, it is good to try to live by consistent principles. But, in reality, sometimes sticking completely to a principle is immoral, dangerous, or just plain stupid. Classic example: "Don't tell lies" but if Nazi's are knocking at your door asking if you are hiding Jews in your attic, it is actually good to tell a lie. In the case of the 2nd Amendment: In general, Americans should have the right to own guns. In some situations some people should not be allow to buy, own, or carry guns. Common sense has to play a role, and we have to allow some exceptions to general rules. The policy of not selling guns to children is a good general rule. Presumably, if a child could demonstrate competence and give good reason for an exception, congress could pass a law allowing children to own guns in some cases. But I doubt you would ever get such a law passed. The same could apply to felons.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 03-06-2018 at 12:47 PM..
race is not a non-arbitrary criterion. Nkechi Amare Diallo, formerly known as Rachel Dolezal, is an example and there are some others I could name.
Wrong. Race is immutable. Its genetic. She is white, btw. What she calls herself, or pretends to be, is irrelevant to what she actually is. Just like biological sex cannot be modified. You are what you are.
Unlike virtually any other category, we generally make age restrictions based on general statistics and tradition. Based on brain development studies (and thousands of years of parental experience) we have good reason to think that children, in general, are not to be trusted with certain types of freedoms. In this case, the brains of teens are still developing in critical ways that make them impulsive. This is "in general" so, yes, there could be some teens who might be safer with guns than the average adult would be. But overall we still have good reasons for not letting kids drive, use tobacco, alcohol, etc., and guns simply fall in this general tradition. And, yes, some adults are irresponsible too, which is why gun laws are appropriate.
Presumably kids can use guns if their parent takes them out hunting or target shooting. But allowing them to buy guns and use them without supervision is a different matter.
We let 16 year olds drive unsupervised.
And if its just based on experience over a long period of time with thousands of examples, would you support applying a requirement for black males to only be able to use guns under the supervision of a responsible party?
I mean, this all sounds like "down home common sense" stuff we're basing our laws on. All based on what we can personally observe tends to happen, and then applying generalizations based on that observation and calling it a law.
So what's the problem?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
