Mass Shootings in Texas (Houston, Dallas: manufactured, housing, racist)

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

well, when dealing with facts, it can be quite important to exclude (or understand) 'averages'. Especially if you would like to evaluate facts with the intent of strategically improving services / performance.

Average, gets you nowhere, but is is a 'cushy' / comfortable number for those avoiding the details or assignment of blame. LEO / DPS in this case.

Education, medical fields in USA are very comfortable with being 'average'..

Texas is very comfortable and prefer using averages, tho there is a lot of diversity (Population, density, demographics...) which should be sorted out if there was any intent to improve. (Which there is not). When 'full-of-yourself', there is little desire to disclose any opportunities to improve. There are a lot of fables / chinese legends which address these barriers, and was purposefully taught in elementary school and early family development decades ago.

I personally prefer to look at "median" rather than "average" for the record.

[malcorub16]

Are there any good rebuttals to raising the age to legally purchasing firearms (any) to 21 or 22?

1. If a young adult wishes to obtain a firearm they must serve in the military and be properly trained to use an arm.
2. This allows young adults to be psychologically vetted by military professionals.
3. It allows someone 3 to 4 years to become a responsible law abiding adult allowing their character to develop and also give some ample time for them to "wind up in the system" if their character shows otherwise.
4. Perhaps some exception that allows for a co-signer (similar to a car rental or student loans) BUT if the weapon is used in a crime, the co signer will he harshly punished as well as the trigger man.
5. Perhaps another exception for property (Land) owners who are 18-22 but with the option of the govt to confiscate land if said weapon is used in a crime.

Not looking to debate, just wanting to hear a rational rebuttal. I know this isn't full proof but I personally do not trust most 18 year old's today with guns. I'm of the opinion that these little twerps who typically aren't criminals until they commit their heinous crime, would be too afraid to buy firearms on the black market.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by malcorub16

Are there any good rebuttals to raising the age to legally purchasing firearms (any) to 21 or 22?

1. If a young adult wishes to obtain a firearm they must serve in the military and be properly trained to use an arm.
2. This allows young adults to be psychologically vetted by military professionals.

I'm not sure I'd make that exception. The military has a lot of experience with young men bearing arms, and the military itself doesn't make that exception. Young adults under arms in the military are also under supervision, and they don't maintain possession of military firearms off duty.

[quote]
3. It allows someone 3 to 4 years to become a responsible law abiding adult allowing their character to develop and also give some ample time for them to "wind up in the system" if their character shows otherwise.

4. Perhaps some exception that allows for a co-signer (similar to a car rental or student loans) BUT if the weapon is used in a crime, the co signer will he harshly punished as well as the trigger man.

That law would have to be written, and there are some legal problems with providing "harsh punishment" to someone for the crimes of another.

5. Perhaps another exception for property (Land) owners who are 18-22 but with the option of the govt to confiscate land if said weapon is used in a crime.

Not looking to debate, just wanting to hear a rational rebuttal. I know this isn't full proof but I personally do not trust most 18 year old's today with guns. I'm of the opinion that these little twerps who typically aren't criminals until they commit their heinous crime, would be too afraid to buy firearms on the black market.

I may have said this earlier in the thread. Eighteen years old, particularly a young man's life, is a point of extreme emotional stress these days in the US. It's the point that someone who has been treated as a child all his life is suddenly treated as an adult.

We can get more into the myriad details, but it's a psychological live-or-die point for many young men if they hadn't already been tracked into a lifetime goal by careful parental and social management of expectations and capabilities. That's more true in the US today than at any point in American history.

By the time they are 21, it's more likely they will be in some kind of stable life-groove.

But 18 is a point of zero stability for--I'd say now--the majority of young men in the US today. Remember most young men in the US are not headed for college and have also not been guided into a path toward any particular useful life.

That's where we have a major problem right now. There was never any real plan or place or expectation for young men like Salvador Ramos.

[Pilsn3r]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I personally prefer to look at "median" rather than "average" for the record.

The "median" would be 3. With the US at 5, a difference of 2, makes the US "far ABOVE" in homicides per 100k.

Or "Median", "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Cuero]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

I may have said this earlier in the thread. Eighteen years old, particularly a young man's life, is a point of extreme emotional stress these days in the US. It's the point that someone who has been treated as a child all his life is suddenly treated as an adult.

We can get more into the myriad details, but it's a psychological live-or-die point for many young men if they hadn't already been tracked into a lifetime goal by careful parental and social management of expectations and capabilities. That's more true in the US today than at any point in American history.

By the time they are 21, it's more likely they will be in some kind of stable life-groove.

But 18 is a point of zero stability for--I'd say now--the majority of young men in the US today. Remember most young men in the US are not headed for college and have also not been guided into a path toward any particular useful life.

Very solid argument for returning the voting age to 21.

[SerlingHitchcockJPeele]

Originally Posted by malcorub16

Are there any good rebuttals to raising the age to legally purchasing firearms (any) to 21 or 22?

Why should a person be able to become a uniformed soldier and be trusted hold weapons much more dangerous if they are under the age of 22 or 21? Either 18-22 year olds are responsible enough to have access weapons or they're not. If we all agree that they are not, they shouldn't be able to enlist either.

The fact that no one is pushing to raise the enlistment age (along with the push to raise the age of legally purchasing guns) indicates that most people believe they are indeed responsible enough to have access to firearms.

[Silverbird55]

All these precious lives lost. So many questions, so few definitive answers. Do we take away everyone's gun? Will only law enforcement and the military be allowed guns? What about corrupt military and/or law enforcement? Do we just arm everybody and become like the wild, wild west?
Theologians say it is a spiritual problem; we need to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Sociologists say it is the evolvement of the species and survival of the fittest. Big Daddy and dem say, "Get your gun before the other fellow gets his!"
I honestly don't know what the answer is. I believe mental illness plays a huge factor in the mass shooting we see today. I also believe that gun owners should undergo a psychological evaluation before getting a weapon...but what about the person who passes the evaluation and for whatever reason, "flips out" and goes on a rampage. Or a family member or friend steals the gun owners gun and goes on a rampage? See, there are no easy, "one size fits all" answers. I just pray that things change soon...

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by SerlingHitchcockJPeele

Why should a person be able to become a uniformed soldier and be trusted hold weapons much more dangerous if they are under the age of 22 or 21? Either 18-22 year old are responsible enough to have access weapons or they're not. If we all agree that they are not, they shouldn't be able to enlist either.
.

They aren't trusted in the military. Young people in the military have been given weeks of intense indoctrination in obedience and regulation. Then they're given carefully supervised training in the weapons. Even after that, they are under supervision whenever they are under arms. They are not allowed access to the weapons off duty, and if they live on the facility, any weapons they own must be kept in an armory. The military does not trust young soldiers to be on their own in the possession of weapons or to have free access to weapons.

[malcorub16]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

There was never any real plan or place or expectation for young men like Salvador Ramos.

Same with Dimitrios Pagourtzis (Santa Fe) and Nikolas Cruz (Parkland) and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine) and Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook).

These are all 18-20 year old men with an fresh ax to grind who either purchased firearms on their own legally OR stole weapons from their parents (Santa Fe and Sandy Hook).

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by malcorub16

Are there any good rebuttals to raising the age to legally purchasing firearms (any) to 21 or 22?

****** Remaining quote omitted for clarity of my response... *****

I have 2 good rebulttals.

1. The vast majority of murders and shootings in the 18-20 age range are criminals -- mostly career criminal gang-banging thugs -- with stolen and illegal firearms. Raising the age to legally purchase firearms would not stop a single gang-banging thug criminal from having access to one of theses illegal or stolen firearms.

So there would be no reduction with murders and shootings.

To the extent that a small portion of these murderous gang-banging thugs have a legally purchased firearm, raising the legal age would only cause them to access a stolen or illegal firearm. It wouldn't restrict their access to guns, just change their means of access. They are going to get a gun one way or another, just as the prohibition on crack cocaine doesn't stop a single gang-banging thug from getting it, but only creates a violent war in the streets over the sale and distribution of it.

2. The vast majority of 18-20 year olds are not shooting people up. It is wrong to punish the 98% due to the actions of the career criminal gang-banging thug 2%. This despite the very rare instance of a mentally ill person 18-20 who snaps and shoots up his school or church.

Such actions are "outliers" that are so rare, they are barely worth mentioning, despite how tragic, awful, and heartbreaking the carnage they cause and innocence they destroy. It is only amplification by the media echo chamber that makes it sound like they occur frequently, all out of proportion to reality.

Example:

800 people were murdered in Chicago last year, primarily by violent career criminal gang-banging thugs. That is just 1 single city. That is just 1 single year.

Meanwhile, this Wiki page lists 274 children murdered in all school shootings in America all time. At least they go back to May of 1940.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_death_toll

So 274 dead in mass school shootings in 82 years time.

800 murdered by violent career criminal gang-banging thugs in one single year in one city alone in one single year.

How is that for a rebuttal?