Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Jun 6 2013 08:15pm)

This is the 'moving goal posts/impossible expectations' rebuttal. I'm sorry you can't see the entire article as I can, but I have access to gated documents, and you don't.

I can't reproduce the full article here because I'd be breaking copyright laws.

Your argument here is a non starter because while there may be methodological flaws, you're unable to point out which ones the author made (though I doubt you could, even if you could read the article). So your entire argument here is really null and void. You have to take what I'm saying at face value.

Here's what you can do: find a study that contradicts what I've posted. That's really your only move here. 



How are statistics irrelevant?

I suppose you can, and are, making the emotional argument. And that's fine. But it doesn't really hold water in a debate. Nor is it a good way to decide policy...which is what we're discussing here.

Should the age be 18 or 21 because you feel that handguns provide more of a benefit (self defense) than harm (shooting other kids/themselves) or should the age be 18 or 21 because the data tells us that handguns are more harmful to younger people than they are beneficial.

The rational argument, which is based on statistics and deductive logic, is that handguns cause more harm than good for young people, therefore the age for handgun ownership should remain 21. You could work out a model that looks at the probability of harm caused of an 18 year old owning a handgun (P18) vs a 21 year old owning a handgun (P21). Based of the evidence that we do have, we know that P18 > P21. Unless you can prove that the probability of using a gun in self defense (Pd) exceeds P18, then the age for handgun ownership should not be lowered to age 18.

Quote (DieTryin' @ Jun 6 2013 09:36pm)

I look to solve the problem you provided in your study without government force. To find why a 20 year old is less capable than a 21 year old. Why we have mature teenagers, and immature adults. There are adults in their 30s-50s who probably shouldn't be driving a car, yet they're legally allowed to, but there are 16 year olds mature enough to drive a car, follow all the rules of the road to a t, or close to it, but are prohibited alone. I think these are the questions we should be asking instead of just accepting things the way they are and pretty much shove that conversation into the background.

Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Jun 6 2013 08:41pm)

I get what you're saying, but it's really a red herring in this context. We're still discussing policy, not the philosophy of regulation.

This question should be in an entirely new thread, but: How would you regulate who can own a gun and who can drive a car without using government force? In short, how do you answer all those questions you posed?

Quote (DieTryin' @ Jun 6 2013 10:18pm)

That's a good question, I think it's a worthy debate to have if we get into statistics for teenagers under 18(grey area, I would argue), government regulation in that sense could be useful to prevent them from owning something like a firearm, but not useful to protect adults from themselves.

Quote

I find the best way to answer all the questions I've posed are to remove a lot of regulations when it comes to researching these things(health on our mind and body), and most restrictions on speech, like 99% of them.

Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Jun 6 2013 09:25pm)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this because you believe that individual's (adults that is) know what's best for themselves?



You mean like conduct natural experiments?

Like get rid of driver licensing?

Quote (JEB90 @ Jun 6 2013 06:23pm)

You really need to make yourself available if they ever recast The Holy Grail.  You've got the "Look, look, he's oppressing me!" down.

Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Jun 6 2013 11:58am)

Well then there shouldn't be an age limit at all then. Fuck it - legalize all guns, no licenses, no anything because bad guys will always get guns and therefore there is no point in restrictions.

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 (ChurchGirl69 @ Jun 6 2013 04:26pm)

I really don't understand this country's obsession with guns. We are such a trigger happy nation. We want everyone to have guns. There are shotguns marketed to little kids. I feel like the right views the 2nd amendment as not a right, but a mandatory thing.