States give them the authority re 25. As for 16 - 18 is the age of majority in most states. So a 16 year old wouldn't be able to contract. A rental agency requires a contract that's binding
Do you support a ban on purchasing semi-auto AR-15 style rifles?
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. People will still kill people with handguns and old timey shotguns and rifles. Booth and Oswald succeeded. But weapons that realistically have no hunting or self-defense purposes ought to be carved out. Does it save every life? No way. How many saved, though, would make it worthwhile?
The devil will be in the details on defining such weapons and preventing easy workarounds. It would be nice if gun experts cared as much as the never-owned-a-gun people and can help with crafting the definitions. I nominate Ranger!
I’m not disagreeing. It’s not smart to ban a certain rounds just because. A .22 round kills more people than any other caliber. Does terrible damage(bounces around)but it’s never mentioned because of the media and ignorance. It’s always on display. Doing any ban before really investigating and educating yourself doesn’t do anything but making people feel good.
I’d even be for heavy restrictions on an AR15 style weapon where a person would have to prove a need, like a rancher needing it to protect the herd. In other words, allow ownership to just a select few and nobody located in an urban area. I think Australia has laws like this in place, but not sure they even allow semi-automatics.
You can rent if over 21 but I should ad you pay an extra personnel fee until 25.
Last edited:
Would not more training make the shooter more effective and efficient?
I would think that only a smallish subset of shooters would be dedicated enough to going through with intensive training. Many mass shootings occur days or even HOURS after the weapon and ammo were purchased. If you are going to have a waiting period (wise), make the waiting period have instructive value, since accidental shootings and an inability to properly secure a weapon from non-owners also contribute to the body count.
They can have them at home, but not their military issued one. We did have them with us at all times in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I was only there for three weeks on each country doing training for Iraqis and Afghans.
No. You can’t purchase one until 21 but 18 -21 can possess one without supervision. A minor can have one with adult supervision. This is one reason most on these threads should be educating themselves about current gun laws, loopholes and how we keep track of this stuff. The feds are terrible at enforcing and keeping track. If we don’t fix those things no bill or law will do any good.
Why don't we fix those things? Fixing those things is part of every plan that is repeatedly (no pun intended) shot down in Congress.
I don't own guns, I won't ever own a gun in all likelihood. But I wouldn't be in favor of an all out ban on owning AR 15's, or most any other guns.
I few things, I think, I would be in support of...with the mindset and spirit that we have to "do something" to improve the climate and trajectory for ALL gun violence in our country right now.
1. 21 year old age limit on purchasing any fire arm. 25 years old for weapons in a specific category, like AR 15s maybe...that category being weapons that are obviously not meant for normal every day hunting, self defense, etc... I'm not smart enough on why and how guns are used across the full spectrum of gun ownership and use...but there has to be some way to categorize them for different kinds of use, potential danger, etc...
2. Exemptions for military and law enforcement could be made for the above age limits. Mainly because of the training those two groups of people naturally get.
3. In order to get a gun license, of any kind, but especially for whatever the category is for AR 15 style guns, you have to pass both a back ground check, an in person training class, and an aptitude test. I'm thinking of what it takes to get a drivers license. You can't take an online test, and you have to complete an in person driving test to demonstrate your abilities to drive a vehicle. There should be something similar for guns.
4. There is some sort of waiting period after the in person tests are completed, before an actual license is approved and provided. Maybe a month? Maybe 2 weeks? During that time period, is when extensive background checks are conducted. AND there should be a waiting period to buy whatever group the AR 15 style guns would be in. Meaning you go into a gun shop, pick your gun out, pay for it maybe... there's a short few days waiting period before you can physically take it home with you.
If you're truly "not part of the problem" none of these regulations should be too much of a burden to bear versus the dramatic positive impact they'd have on demented, younger people, using AR 15 style guns to shoot up a bunch of people.
It won't solve the more singular 1 on 1 type gun violence, obviously. Which also needs to be addressed at the same time. The background checks, waiting periods, age limits, etc... will help a little bit. But other measures need to be taken there as well.
No clue if what I posed are realistic, but something needs to be addressed...and the answer IS NOT, and should not, all out banning weapons.
I few things, I think, I would be in support of...with the mindset and spirit that we have to "do something" to improve the climate and trajectory for ALL gun violence in our country right now.
1. 21 year old age limit on purchasing any fire arm. 25 years old for weapons in a specific category, like AR 15s maybe...that category being weapons that are obviously not meant for normal every day hunting, self defense, etc... I'm not smart enough on why and how guns are used across the full spectrum of gun ownership and use...but there has to be some way to categorize them for different kinds of use, potential danger, etc...
2. Exemptions for military and law enforcement could be made for the above age limits. Mainly because of the training those two groups of people naturally get.
3. In order to get a gun license, of any kind, but especially for whatever the category is for AR 15 style guns, you have to pass both a back ground check, an in person training class, and an aptitude test. I'm thinking of what it takes to get a drivers license. You can't take an online test, and you have to complete an in person driving test to demonstrate your abilities to drive a vehicle. There should be something similar for guns.
4. There is some sort of waiting period after the in person tests are completed, before an actual license is approved and provided. Maybe a month? Maybe 2 weeks? During that time period, is when extensive background checks are conducted. AND there should be a waiting period to buy whatever group the AR 15 style guns would be in. Meaning you go into a gun shop, pick your gun out, pay for it maybe... there's a short few days waiting period before you can physically take it home with you.
If you're truly "not part of the problem" none of these regulations should be too much of a burden to bear versus the dramatic positive impact they'd have on demented, younger people, using AR 15 style guns to shoot up a bunch of people.
It won't solve the more singular 1 on 1 type gun violence, obviously. Which also needs to be addressed at the same time. The background checks, waiting periods, age limits, etc... will help a little bit. But other measures need to be taken there as well.
No clue if what I posed are realistic, but something needs to be addressed...and the answer IS NOT, and should not, all out banning weapons.
What does that mean? Besides the few people I’ve heard wanting to ban all guns, I’ve never heard any other type of gun mentioned for banning.
.30-06 is the same caliber as the M1 Garand rifle used in WWII.
M1 Garand - Wikipedia
At some point, you have to recognize that these mass school killings - and probably most urban shootings - are done by under 21 year olds.
Make an exception for veterans, fine. But turning 18 is not a magic number that makes you responsible. Many are emotionally ready to deal with life, but many aren't.
At the very least, I could see allowing 18 year olds a firearm if they get a signed certificate from their family doctor that they are mentally and emotionally stable enough to have one.
I like that idea! Of course, it doesn't exactly comport with the 2nd Amendment.
But if you could get gun manufacturers to sell to only people with 'gun insurance', it would cut down on what are now legal sales to nutcases.
Would additional training and safety requirements really stop anyone from shooting up school who wanted to do it?
Wouldn't it make them more lethal?
I agree that gun safety is a good idea - I'm just not sure it would stop these mass killings. Actually, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stop them.
No it’s not. The Democrat bill for instance, says in the very first section….use current infrastructure. That is ridiculous. The current laws already fail us because of database purging.
One would be a fool to bring a .22 or a .223 to a gun fight. The purpose of guns if used for personal defense is to knock down and kill. The gauges above can be lethal but with help, higher caliber guns with appropriate ammunition are much more effective. There is a reason you can't shoot big game with anything lower than a .270 it is not as deadly or it takes longer for the animal to pass.
.22 are very easy to get one's hands on as well as the ammo is cheap, so it probably is a gun that is associated with a lot of shooting not sure if accounts for the most deaths. I have not looked it up but I would put my money on a 9mm, still an easy gun to get a ton more knock down power than a .22 and the ammo is still not very expensive.
It’s kind of my point. The arguments given aren’t all valid and that’s worth including in arguments.
Accident rates and average claim sizes say certain lines of business are loss leaders.
I assumed rental car companies set the age because of risks and since they are private companies they can set their own rules.
Yeah I don't get people talking about additional training. Apparently the mass shooters know how to use them... it's not like most of the killings are because of accidents because people don't know what they're doing with the gun.
But why does it happen here and not in other countries? There can't be any single reason....but why here? Why are we so unique in this behavior?
Do you not understand how to read a question and provide a logical answer that relates to that original question?
I get it’s bad for business, but so are plenty of demographics in many lines of business. Normal insurance models would simply charge them more to assume more risk vs no business whatsoever until age 25. It’s why I posed the question to one of the lawyers on the board.
The basic question is over your head so maybe go put your thumb up your ass?
He said long guns. That means shotguns, .22's, hunting rifles, etc. I already said we could talk about rifles that require high velocity ammo, but the thing where this always falls apart is where people cannot (out of ignorance) or will not define what is banned.
You think a 20 year old shouldn't be able to own a shotgun?
Hey man, I wasn't on academic probation until my 2nd year of college....so, there. Take that
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s a moot argument. The military variant has the selectable burst setting but it’s not used. Using this as the hill to die on is pretty silly.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Yes. I believe Marvin’s question was about their issued weapon and that stays in the arms room unless deployed to the field or combat zone.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Yes they should be able to own a shotgun. I’m not concerned about mass shootings with shotguns that carry five rounds and aren’t lethal at range.
Wtf are you talking about? You don’t agree the term is misused? The military doesn’t use burst? What hill am I dying on?
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
No. The infantry doesn’t use burst. The outdated field manuals when I was in said you clear a room by spraying several bursts into it. Guess which jail that will land you in. The existence of a switch on the lower receiver does not mean it’s used.
The hill you’re dying on is the terminology one. It’s very simple. Semi auto high velocity long rifles should be banned from private ownership / homes. Period. End of story.
I’m not dying on a hill. I’m simply stating a fact. You are arguing just to argue. It’s a definition still used. I’m not sure what you are arguing. I’m simply stating the definitions. I’m not arguing how or if it’s used. It exists and is banned for public use or purchase.
Actually you have it backwards, according to self-described longtime gun enthusiast (and former NRA member) Dion Lefler, who is known for debunking gun myths... On the subject of "assault rifles"...
"The AR does stand for Armalite, but that’s about as true as this myth gets. The gun was developed under a Pentagon bid specification — I’ve read it — specifically seeking a “semi-automatic assault rifle” for troops.
Armalite sold the design to Colt, which cranked out two versions — the military M-16 in selective fire and the civilian AR-15 in semi-automatic.
AR-15s and their copycats — along with cheaper Chinese knockoffs of the Soviet AK-47 — were called assault rifles in gun catalogs, gun magazines and by owners until well into the 2000s.
But the term got a bad reputation after assault rifles became the weapon of choice for random mass shootings, because they’re the most capable and formidable weapons a civilian can buy.
In 2009, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade association, coined a new and softer term — “modern sporting rifle” — and demanded everybody use it."
Busting gun-culture myths that always surface after mass shootings; let’s get real
Uvalde, Texas school shooting spurs spurious rhetoric on why to do nothing. Here’s how to confront it | Commentary
Similar threads
