Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Jun 6 2013 03:26pm)

Ok, I'll just point out why your argument is ridiculous.

14 yr old Gangbangers are already below the age of 21, so why have an age restriction at all?

See why your logic is faulty?

Quote (Skinned @ Jun 6 2013 03:22pm)

Where do 14 year olds get their guns from?

Quote (Clicquot @ Jun 6 2013 03:30pm)

the difference between using a gun in the military and owning it privately is huge, i dont see how you people dont see that

the military trains how to properly and safely use it, as well as being much stricter in what cadets can and cant do with it

private life and military life are different and its preposterous to think otherwise


the idiotic claim that it only effects law abiding citizens applies to ALL LAWS should we have no laws if criminals are just going to break them?
what a horrible argument

as for OP, i can see the difference as they are easier to conceal than shotguns and rifles, and the long barreled guns available to 18 year olds can be used for sport or "defense" in a home
however i dont think you can call someone an adult while still considering them a child as this law implies, there should be consistency in age laws

Quote (BardOfXiix @ Jun 6 2013 02:17pm)

This one

Quote

V. Conclusion
This paper uses a unique data set to demonstrate that increases in gun
ownership lead to substantial increases in the overall homicide rate.
This is driven entirely by a relationship between firearms and homicides
in which a gun is used, implying that the results are not driven by reverse
causation or by omitted variables. The relationship between changes in
gun ownership and changes in all other crime categories is weaker and
typically insignificant, suggesting that guns influence crime primarily by
increasing the homicide rate.

Quote

In another case control study, Cummings, Koepsell, Grossman, Savarino, and Thompson (1997) attempted to determine whether the purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer was associated with an increased risk of homicide in any location, and whether this association varied in relation to the time since the purchase.

The study sample was identified through a large Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in Seattle, WA. Case subjects were HMO members who died as a result of homicide between 1980 and 1992. Controls were HMO members matched to the cases on age, sex, and neighborhood or zip code. Two principal categories of handgun purchase were examined: personal purchase and family member purchase.

Over the 12-year study period, there were 117 homicides in which 56% involved a firearm. For 22% of homicide victims, compared to 12% of controls, a family member had purchased a handgun. The relative risk of death by homicide for individuals with a family handgun purchase was 2.2 (95% CI=1.3–3.7). The relative risk of death by homicides with a personal handgun purchase was also 2.2. There was no statistically significant association between time of purchase of a handgun and the risk of homicide. Indeed, no victim in this study was murdered with a gun within 5 years of any firearm handgun purchase. There was, however, an increased risk for homicide as the number of handguns purchased increased.

Quote

The Institute of Medicine in comparing the US to similar industrialized countries in terms of life expectancy found that our homicide rate is far in excess of comparable OECD countries, and significantly affects our life expectancy. The IOM study found our homicide rate to be 6.9 times higher than the other OECD countries, our gun homicide rate 19.5 times higher, and of the 23 countries in the study, the US was responsible for 80% of all firearm deaths. It is also useful to narrow down the problem by age. One of the worst aspects of this type of mortality is that it disproportionately affects the young. If you convert it from a mere cause of death, to a calculation of years of life lost, gun homicide is a much more striking phenomenon. In the end, our mortality rate is 100%. A comparison of the relative mortality of different mechanisms of death is not meaningful in itself unless we also consider the age at which the mechanism strikes. Firearm homicide kills at a mean age in the 30s for males, and in when years of life lost is used for comparison firearm homicide is only exceeded unintentional injuries (car accidents, falls etc), cancer, and heart attacks. Sorry if that’s old data, that’s what happens when the gun lobby prevents the CDC from studying the problem. A more recent analysis puts firearms just behind automobile accidents for decreasing our life expectancy.

Quote (SwaziSpring @ Jun 6 2013 02:28pm)

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that lowering the age from 21 to 18 will not affect the ability of those under 18 to obtain firearms.

Quote (WidowMaKer_MK @ Jun 6 2013 01:56pm)

...protecting under 21's from their own stupidity is a valid social responsibility .

Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 6 2013 02:40pm)

First, why do you put Defense in quotes? It's not a theoretical concept. Second, a handgun can be used in both sporting and home defense scenarios. So, invalid argument.