Handguns for 18-Year-Olds?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Handguns for 18-Year-Olds?
17
Fri, 11-26-2010 - 10:40am

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26fri1.html?_r=1&hp

The National Rifle Association keeps coming up with clever new ways to undermine public safety.

Just in the past year, the gun-rights group sought to scuttle basic gun controls enacted by the District of Columbia, including a ban on powerful semiautomatic weapons in the nation’s capital. The group also blocked common-sense efforts in Congress to bar people on the F.B.I.’s terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives. It kept open the deadly loophole in federal law that lets gun traffickers and other unqualified buyers to obtain weapons without background checks at gun shows.

Last week, President Obama had barely nominated a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is supposed to control firearms — Andrew Traver, a well-qualified career professional — before the gun lobby denounced him as “deeply aligned with gun control advocates.” Mr. Traver’s sin? Associating with a police chief’s group that wants to reduce the use of handguns on city streets. The nomination was rated dead on arrival in the next Congress, where the N.R.A. will, if anything, be more powerful.

Finally, the gun lobby has filed two lawsuits in federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to compel the State of Texas to allow young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns and carry them concealed in public places.

The first suit challenges the longstanding federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21 years old. The second case contests a Texas law setting 21 as the minimum age for carrying a concealed weapon.

As a legal matter, both lawsuits should fail. In its recent Second Amendment rulings, the Supreme Court struck down complete bans on handgun ownership, but explicitly left room for limits on gun ownership and possession by felons and the mentally ill, and other reasonable restrictions like Texas’ age limitations. The Supreme Court has said nothing to suggest that the Second Amendment requires Americans to allow armed teenagers in their communities.

Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible.

Young people in that age range commit a disproportionate amount of gun violence. F.B.I. crime data from 2009 shows arrests for murder, nonnegligent homicides and other violent crimes peaking from ages 18 to 20. That age group accounts for about 5 percent of the population but nearly 20 percent of homicide and manslaughter arrests, and nearly twice the number of such arrests for those ages 30 to 34, according to the F.B.I. figures.

What the N.R.A. should be doing is keeping our streets and our teenagers safer by working to extend the prohibition on guns sales to people 18 to 20 years old by licensed dealers to include unlicensed sellers at gun shows and elsewhere.

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Fri, 11-26-2010 - 10:51am

Everyone knows I do not like guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2010
Fri, 11-26-2010 - 9:17pm

I will be taking my 10 year old and 13 year old to an NRA gun safety class where they will learn about gun safety, how to treat a gun, how to properly load and unload a gun, and how to fire a gun.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Fri, 11-26-2010 - 10:35pm

I'm in Texas and I'm against lowering the age limit for handguns and the CHL.

I had my first handgun before I was 21, and looking back, it was unnecessary and maybe even a little foolish.

Let them carry a rifle or shotgun.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Sun, 11-28-2010 - 2:22pm

I found it interesting in a news report I was watching...almost every younger person asked (in their 20's) said that the age should remain 21...and it was the older ones who said things like 'maybe Virginia Tech wouldn't have happened' had more students had their own handguns'...stuff like that.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 11-29-2010 - 7:48am

As much as I hate 18 yr.olds going to war, or any age for that matter, but prior to going into combat they're trained.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 11-29-2010 - 7:54am

"it was unnecessary and maybe even a little foolish."

I agree. I can understand 18-20 yr. olds that go hunting or target shooting, with an adult, owning a rifle. What I don't think we need is this age group carrying concealed handguns. I don't believe, generally speaking, they're mature enough.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 11-29-2010 - 7:56am

"Before setting in motion more problems, why can't the NRA help to correct the gun ownership/dealer/gun show problems that currently exist??"

I agree!!!

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Mon, 11-29-2010 - 8:56am
I am so sick of losing posts because I backspaced too fast to correct an error. Sick, sick of it. This time it took me back two prior pages.

Anyway, I don't think training is relevant here. It is a matter of maturity, as you pointed out in a further post.

And training for combat is good, but by far failsafe. Turns out the young man who accidentally discharged his rifle here while hunting a few weeks ago.... is a war veteran. Blew a hole through the vehicle he was riding in with 2 others. He's not allowed here anymore.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 11-29-2010 - 9:32am
Instead of backspacing I post then edit. The same thing was happening to me.

Fortunate no one in vehicle was shot.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Mon, 11-29-2010 - 9:44am

A difference between liberals and conservatives imo is that conservatives accept our laws and rights, liberals seem to want to cherry pick.


The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution provides us with a right to bear arms, this is on an equal basis with the 1st Amendment. Would you favor D.C. limiting freedom of speech to only some people, or only providing limited expression within the district?


The ACLU does a lot of tort over nonsense, the NRA is focused on a single issue. Instead of complaining about the NRA suing to establish Constitutional rights for residents of D.C., my take on the story was "where is the ACLU?"


If you are old enough to vote or get drafted, owning a handgun shouldn't be a problem. The New York Times is a liberal rag, and doesn't tolerate rights others may want well. To the authors of the New York Times guns are scary things, just as free speech that isn't advocating leftist positions is also scary. Unfortunately for the New York Times, they can't cherry pick which rights we all get, though they can rant about it and complain a lot ... which they seem to be doing quite a bit.

Pages