Handguns for 18-Year-Olds?

[SecularMotion]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opinion/26fri1.html?ref=opinion

[Glassunion]

1. So? What's the problem with allowing 18 year olds to purchase handguns?

I have no issue with it.

[Demstud]

3. The argument

The argument is that despite being around 5% of the population, a disproportionate amount of murders (20%) are committed by 18-20 year olds, so I guess the author thinks the gun ownership age should be 21 like alcohol. I don't think that would be constitutional, but I'm no lawyer.

[Glassunion]

8. If that is the case, then it is a very weak argument.

[Demstud]

10. Yes, it is

[Euromutt]

28. By that token, why not raise the driving age to 21 as well?

I'm pretty certain a disproportionate number of motor vehicle collisions involve under-21s as well.

Hell, better raise the voting age back to 21, and the age at which one can enlist in the armed forces.

(Not directed at you, Demstud; I saw you expressed disagreement with the argument further down.)

[lepus]

2. The US government already arms 18 year olds.

Whats the problem?

They can vote, engage in contracts, and are considered adults under the law.

Should we increase public safety by outlawing firearms for people with to much pigmentation, adulterers, people over fifty, or people that vote third party?

I really do not understand this weird concept that we can on the one hand demand that people of a certain age group have all the responsibilities of an adult, yet on the other hand have none of the rights.

[rfranklin]

7. Difference is, they are actually "well-regulated" in the military...

Well, most of the time.

[PavePusher]

15. Which has no bearing on a Constitutional Civil Right.

But you knew that, amIright?

[Kennah]

20. "Well-regulated" does not mean what you believe it means

Federalist Paper #29
Alexander Hamilton
1788

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.
...
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

[Glassunion]

21. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. either raise the age to join the services to 21 or allow this to pass

so sick of the double standards.

[Demstud]

5. And what about the terrorist watch list?

The author says that it is "common sense" to deny gun sales to people on this list, but I think it seems like common sense that you can't deny a constitutional right to someone for merely being suspected of wanting to commit a crime by an authority figure. The terrorist watch list is pretty arbitrary with no due process involved. Yes, guns are dangerous, and no, you don't have to like guns. But their ownership is a constitutional right and it's silly to act as if denying full citizens their constitutional rights is a common sense action that we should support willy nilly.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Fuckin' A Bubba!

Why is there ANY limit on when a child should get his first firearm? This is the God Damned United States of Fucking America and our Constitution gives each and every American the absolute right to own a firearm. I say the NRA should just be done with all this mamby pamby BS and cut to the heart of the matter. I would offer that the NRA should offer this Christmas a complete line of smaller guns and holsters for toddlers on up. They could make the weapons cool colors. Maybe the tots could decorate their Xmas Roscoes with sparkly stickers and such. Maybe a line of diaper friendly holsters? It will only be when each and every American fetus is able to pack heat in the womb that the dreams of our founding fathers will be realized! God bless America motherfucker!

[one-eyed fat man]

9. Are you saying you want to repeal the 26th amendment too?

"1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That government has for generations armed soldiers between 18 and 21 got you crapping your pants?

Who exactly do you think should be allowed to own a gun?

That is after you get done with your hare-brained hyperbolic rants.



When I was a kid you could hunt at age 11. But back in the Fifties either we were more responsible as kids or our parents had higher expectations. After our chores were done, we often went hunting, by ourselves! In the summer we would thin out the groundhogs in the pastures. In the fall, Mom welcomed a big cottontail or a nice fat ruffed grouse for the supper table. Venison was part of winter fare.

When I grew up, if your parents couldn't trust you with a pocket knife by age 8, a .22 rifle by age 10, and your own shotgun by age 12, you were pretty much a failure in the eyes of adults as well as your peers.

[Demstud]

11. Children do have a right to own a gun, don't they?

At least with parental supervision. Not being of voting age, they generally aren't considered full citizens yet (can't vote, serve in military, and need parental permission/adult supervision for many activities). I learned to shoot in the boyscouts when I was 13/14 (learned gun safety and took us to a target range).

[Euromutt]

29. Technically not "own," but they can possess/have control of a firearm

As in, the firearm cannot be their legal property, but they can generally (caveat: state laws vary, and IANAL) be in possession of a firearm, if on private property or in a location open to the public for recreational shooting, and if under (some measure of) adult supervision.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

14. "They could make the weapons cool colors."

I happen to like the yellow Dewalt versions of the AR-15s that you see pics of on the net.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. oh.good.lord.

:eyes: :rofl:

[Euromutt]

30. Well, we generally consider 18 to be the age of legal adulthood

(As does most of the rest of the world.) It's the age at which you gain the right to vote, and enlist in the armed forces. So the topic of discussion isn't about children, your straw colossus notwithstanding; it is about 18 year-olds, i.e. people legally held to be adults.

Let me spell that out for you again:

We are not talking about children, we are talking about ADULTS.

Is that clear enough, or do I need to use a larger and friendlier font, and add some pictures?

[SteveM]

41. When you wash out your mouth, try some Immodium.

You are having fun at culture war. And you are losing.

[Tejas]

13. Brady Center weighs in with the usual genius

"This is an unprecedented attempt to arm teenagers ... even though most states currently restrict them from carrying a concealed weapon," said Daniel Vice , senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence .
"Teen gang members could buy guns if this law is changed."

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/nra-opens-new-front-in-gun-rights-battle-1073668.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss




News flash for you Mr Vice: Teen gang members already HAVE guns.

The only thing that is NOT news...is that you already knew this.










edit: link to article

[Glassunion]

16. A simple critique of the article...

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{By "basic" the author means "a complete ban on handguns"}, including a ban on powerful semiautomatic weapons{By "powerful" the author means any gun of any caliber including this .11 that fires with less velocity than some air-guns} 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 {Maybe because it is unconstitutional. Not to mention the list of FUCKING WORTHLESS! Remember the underwear bomber...} 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.

*snip*

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{Who says that they are reasonable? The author?}. The Supreme Court has said nothing to suggest that the Second Amendment requires Americans to allow armed teenagers in their communities. {Newsflash... They don't have to.}

Beyond the dubious (sic) 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. {Nice... Breathtakingly irresponsible. Leave out the fact that in many states it is already legal for an 18 y/o to possess a handgun. It is federal law that just prohibits their purchase. Again with the blood in the streets bullshit that never seems to happen. How many 19 y/o Marines serving overseas do you hear about getting drunk and killing each other? Does the author realize that the US Marines lowered their drinking age? The picture at the following link probably sends chills up the author's spine... 19 y/o Marine Corporal Shea... Old enough to drink and WTF is that strapped to his side!?}
http://iraqnam.blogspot.com/2007/05/marine-corps-lowers-driniking-age-to-18.html

Young people in that age range commit a disproportionate amount of gun violence. F.B.I. crime data from 2009 shows arrests for murder, non negligent homicides and other violent crimes peaking from ages 18 to 20. {How many of those have prior criminal history? How many of those are gang members fighting over turf, who would, in all probability be prohibited from purchasing a firearm even if the age was dropped to 18?}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 is the old adage? Figures don't lie and lairs figure. What about the 25-29 group? What about the under 18 group? If I wanted to twist the shit around I would compare the ages 9-12 group, but I would not do that. In closing: Why has the author mentioned nothing about the fact that it is legal in the majority of states for an 18 year old to purchase a rifle? In some states this includes the scary black ones with attachments.}

Perhaps the author would feel safer if only people like this detective have guns...

EDIT: Because I wanted to.

[rrneck]

17. People aren't machines.

There isn't some great bell in the sky that declares a child an adult on his eighteenth birthday as if he were being shot off an assembly line. Socioeconomic factors like nutrition, family dynamics, race inequality, and income have a dramatic impact on his rate of intellectual and moral development. Every mental health professional I have talked to agrees that human males don't develop a clear understanding of consequences until at least their early twenties. That's why the draft age will never be raised to twenty one, since teenagers make the best cannon fodder for storming beachheads.

The arbitrary "line" declaring one able to assume the responsibilities of an adult means little in the lives of real people. Members of the population most at risk from income inequality and social injustice are most likely to suffer from developmental handicaps in cognitive function. Poor nutrition reduces IQ. Parents who are forced to work two or three jobs to feed a family have little time to devote to the intellectual or moral development of a child. The result is that while the chronological age of a child may be eighteen, his mental or emotional age may be little more that fourteen or fifteen. Or less.

Even among families that are more financially and socially secure there is no guarantee that a significant preponderance of children will be able to assume the responsibilities of public firearms carriage. The same teenagers that can afford to indulge in extreme sports will be able to afford firearms.

While allowing an eighteen year old to purchase, own, and publicly carry a firearm may pass constitutional muster, in actual practice the net result will be to further push risk down the economic ladder to land heaviest on those who are least able to support it.

It may be possible to allow teenagers to own and carry handguns if some method of assessment and probation were established to individually oversee the assumption of their responsibilities. Unfortunately public policy and cultural homogeneity on the regulation of firearms for older adults is still incomplete. Until we make more progress in our current task, it would be unwise to allow what would be surely be flawed public policy based on arbitrary criteria to expose teenagers, and especially at risk teenagers, to responsibilities they may not be able to fulfill.

[PavePusher]

19. Would you be willing to apply the same reasoning/criteria to our other Civil Rights?

If not, flaming hypocracy ownership would be in your immediate future.

If so, well, at least you'd be intellectually consisent, but in mortal peril of being a flaming authoritarian.

If there are other possibilities, I'd be overjoyed to hear them.

[rrneck]

25. Would you be willing to cosign a note for an eighteen year old

you've never met? Can you show any meaningful difference between a seventeen year, three hundred and sixty four day, twenty three hour and fifty nine minute old seventeen year old and the same person sixty seconds later?

How many people have died within a fraction of a second of pulling a voting lever? How many people have been killed by a Twitter update? While all civil rights should be sacrosanct the consequences of their exercise are not all the same.

Firearms are unique in our culture. That's what makes dealing with them such a thorny issue. They are necessary to the point of being irreplaceable, personal in nature, portable, and the consequences of their use are immediate, dramatic and irrevocable. You can't call a bullet back.

If you have a way to insure that every eighteen year old has the emotional and intellectual ability to assume the responsibility of life and death over himself and the people around him I'd be delighted to hear it. Unfortunately, people mature at different rates depending on the circumstances of their lives and their biology. That's the difference between ideology and reality. If we implement the former without consideration for the latter we get bad public policy and a lot of misery for people that didn't deserve it.

How willing are you to throw away the gains made by gun owners in the last twenty years? The best way I can think of is to significantly boost straw purchases, crimes of passion, and accidents by codifying the ownership of handguns for about a million people who aren't able to assume responsibility for them.

[X_Digger]

26. "How many people have been killed by a Twitter update?" -- were they driving at the time? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

27. You are right about one thing

18 is not necessarily a magic number. But it sure can be. On day 17 years, 364 days a kid might be boffing his 15 year old girlfriend like they have every afternoon since middle school.

The next day he is guilty of child abuse, even if she's the one who jumped his bones.

That has happened.........and the 18 year old is now a convicted sex offender.

When I was 18 it was legal to drink in several states, Wisconsin, Montana, and Ohio are three I remember. It was also legal to drink on a military reservation at 18 when I first enlisted in the Army.

I knew plenty of soldiers who had served in combat long before they were able to vote, the 26th amendment not passing until 1971.

Twenty-one became the "national drinking age" during the 80's because Congress extorted compliance from the states by withholding highway funds.

Every one of you self-righteous so and so's who used a fake ID to buy beer at 18 raise your hand.

[PavePusher]

32. You raise a valid point.

Unfortunately, it is not practical to give each and every person an individual evaluation to determine when they are sufficiently responsible to take on any particulat task, or set of tasks. So, we pick what we think is a reasonable, non-arbitrary point to draw a line.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a series of steps in the process. 16 to drive, 18 to drink, 20 to buy guns, 22 to join the military, 24 to vote, etc. If you fail to be responsible at any step, you can not proceed until you have done some remedial education/made restitution/re-proved yourself. The permutations are nearly endless and variously debateable. I could even be persuaded that a person should demonstrate that they can/will give to society before making demands of it, i.e. public service of some sort being a pre-requisite to the right to vote (enlist in the military/become a fireman/teach in public schools/push a shovel on public works/etc).

But at the age when a person is required to be available to defend the nation with her/his life on the line, at that point they should be able to enjoy ALL the liberties and responsibilities available to a full, legal adult. That is where I draw my line and I will accept no less. Anything else is immoral expediency and exploitation tantamount to slavery.

[rrneck]

34. indeed

I think it's barbaric ask a little more than children to risk their lives when they have an incomplete understanding of consequences

Unfortunately teenagers make the best cannon fodder

It might be best to just raise the age of consent 25 for everything across the board

Sorry about the short reply

I'm posting from the damn phone

[PavePusher]

36. No worries, I admire you for putting out the effort.

I can't be bothered do do stuff like this via phone.

That what netbooks are for. 8>)

[Euromutt]

33. Would you be willing to co-sign a loan for a 21 year-old you've never met?

If your answer is "no," you've just acknowledged that the three-year age difference between 18 and 21 isn't the determining factor.

Personally, I would not be willing to co-sign a loan with anyone whom I didn't know (and trusted) extremely well, regardless of age, be that person 18, 21, 35, 50 or whatever. Age simply isn't a determining factor in considering that decision.

[rrneck]

35. sure

If he had good credit history

Of course if he failed to pay off it probably wouldn't kill anybody

When we balance the consequences of failure against available history and the potential for change for better or worse it gets real complicated.

Operating at the age of the envelope seems to me to require an extra measure of prudence and caution.

Sorry about the squirrely post

I'm posting from the damn phone

[Euromutt]

31. I don't disagree that 18 is a somewhat arbitrary number for the legal age of majority...

...it is, for better or worse, the number most societies in the world have selected as being the age at which you legally become an adult. And to a large extent, the reason we pick a chronological age--any age--is because it is an objective and easily measured standard; it has either been 18 (or 21, or whatever) years since the date of your birth, or it has not. No society is willing to bear the cost of subjecting every teenager to a full psych evaluation to see whether he's emotionally mature enough to be entrusted with the rights of full citizenship, not to mention the appeals process that would have to be attached to it to ensure it was implemented fairly.

So having decided as a society that the age of 18 is an adequate criterium to accord a person full rights of citizenship, we have to be consistent in that decision. It's even more arbitrary to say "well, we think you're old enough to vote and enlist (or even be drafted!) in the armed forces, but you're not old enough to drink alcohol or purchase a handgun (but if you become a police officer, the government will provide you with one)."

[one-eyed fat man]

18. Maine and Indiana

Maine statutes: 25 M.R.S.A. §2003, sub §3

Be 18 years of age to apply for a concealed firearms permit. Request an application from the issuing authority. This may be the mayor, selectmen or the chief of police, if you are a resident. If you do not live in a town or you are not a resident, contact the chief of the state police at the Department of Public Safety, Maine State Police, Licensing Division, 164 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0164, or call [phone].

From Indiana Code: IC 35-47-2

(g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the charges for the specific offense are dismissed. The superintendent shall prescribe all forms to be used in connection with the administration of this chapter.

No wonder Vinnie's head is exploding! Certainly, the streets are awash in blood from all the Dodge City shootouts, fender benders, arguments over parking spots and carnage from the 18 to 20 year old concealed carry permit holders in these states now.

What, they are not??

What? Do you mean those teenage thugs and gang members didn't supply the State Police with 2 passport photos, fingerprints, and pay the fees to get a permit????

You mean crooks, thugs and gang-bangers just ignore any law they want? Hell, next thing you'll claim they smoke dope, drink under-age, and cross state lines for immoral purposes? Why are so many crooks caught during a routine traffic stop? You think maybe if somebody doesn't think twice about knocking over a liquor store for a couple of hundred bucks that something as mundane as a traffic law will concern them any?

Don't that beat all!

[LawnKorn]

22. Another emotional editorial from a major news paper

Let's look a a couple of the editorial statements

scuttle basic gun controls enacted by the District of Columbia, including a ban on ...

The truth is the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia could not deprive citizens of a right that the Constitution of the United States restricts the Government from nullifying.

lets gun traffickers and other unqualified buyers to obtain weapons without background checks at gun shows

The creditability of the editorial writer is completely enervated after this statement. The gun show argument has been rendered void through statistics on numerous occasions.

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is supposed to control firearms

Let's check the mission statement of the ATF:

ATF MISSION
The mission of ATF is to conduct criminal
investigations, regulate the firearms and explosives
industries, and assist other law enforcement
agencies. This work is undertaken to prevent
terrorism, reduce violent crime and to protect the
public in a manner that is faithful to the Constitution
and the laws of the United States.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/sp/2004-2009/2004-2009-strategic-plan-vision-mission.pdf

I don't see anything about gun control there.

allow young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns

I wonder how many places in the Constitution an age restriction is placed on an individual right. Just who is it that gets to add an age restriction and under what power granted by the Constitution is this age restriction implemented?

[DissedByBush]

23. 18 year-old are citizens, right? n/t

[krispos42]

37. Gee, do ya think the Times is anti-gun?

:sarcasm:


DC's gun laws weren't "basic", they were the Platnium Ultra package.


Most semi-autos are less powerful than a .357 Magnum.

The FBI watch list is entirely arbitrary. If you could lose your right to vote, lobby Congress, or have a jury trial by being put on it, then I don't think the Times would be on the bandwagon.

There is no gun show loophole.

[oneshooter]

39. The same NY Times that put Gatling Guns on its roof in1863?

The Irish were protesting the draft.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

42. Damn, beat me to it. One of those portable, short-barreled jobs.

But hell, it was just Irish trash. (I'm ethnically Irish, BTW.)

[one-eyed fat man]

45. Most semi-autos are less powerful than a .357 Magnum

10mm, a real cartridge before the girls in the FBI got S&W to build the .40 short and weak!:hide:

[Euromutt]

38. "Young people in that age range commit a disproportionate amount of gun violence."

Quoth the NYT writer:

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.

While that may be true*, it is also true that homicide offenders are also disproportionately male and black. Men make up an estimated 49.4% of the population, blacks an estimated 12.3%; but of 2009 homicide offenders (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html) of whom the sex was known, 89.7% were male (10,391 out of 11,588), while of homicide offenders of whom race was known, 51.6% were black (5,890 out of 11,421).

By the NYT editorial board's logic, it would make sense to prohibit men and blacks from owning handguns; black men should probably be prohibited from owning any firearm**. Never mind that that would be obviously sexist and racist, it's for public safety, and won't somebody think of the children?

But most of the reason why such measures would be discriminatory is because it penalizes (by depriving them of freedoms retained by other citizens) entire population groups on the basis of the actions of a tiny percentage of their number. Even if every homicide known to have been committed in 2009 by a black perpetrator had been committed by a different individual, we're still talking fewer than 6,000 murderers out of a black population of some 37 million. Similarly, if every murder known to have been committed in 2009 by a male perpetrator had been committed by a different individual, we're talking fewer than 11,000 murderers out of a male population of some 150 million. So for every black murderer, there are over 6,000 black non-murderers; for every male murderer, there are over 13,600 male non-murderers.

And by a back-of-the envelope calculation based on the NYT writer's numbers, for every murderer aged 18-20, there are some 5,000 18-20 year-olds who are not murderers.
(The FBI's UCR reports 15,760 homicides in 2009; 20% of that is 3,152; call it 3,000, since the editorial says "nearly 20%." If the 18-20 age group makes up 5% of the population, that means there are 0.05 x 300 million = around 15 million of them. So worst case, if every homicide known to have been committed by an 18-20 year-old was committed by a different individual, we're looking at 3,000 murderers out of a population of 15 million 18-20 year-olds, i.e. 1 in 5,000.)

Do we really feel comfortable about depriving several thousand people of a freedom normally accorded adult citizens because of the behavior of one person? Doesn't that seem like a disproportionate number of people to (in effect) punish?

It also deserves mention in this context that these same demographic disproportions apply to victims. That is, not only is the perpetrator of any given homicide disproportionately likely to be male, black, aged 17-34, or any combination thereof, but so is the victim. In fact, younger males are disproportionately likely to suffer injury as a result of risky activity in any area, simply because younger males are most likely to engage in high-risk behavior in the first place. This is largely an effect of simple biology: one's appetite for risk is closely correlated to one's levels of testosterone, and men in their late teens and early twenties from the segment of society with (on average) the highest levels of the stuff. My personal hypothesis regarding why black young men are even more disproportionately represented in violent crime figures is (among other things, obviously) because blacks tend to be poorer, and thus can't afford to go snowboarding, skiing, BASE-jumping, mountaineering and all the other potentially neck-breaking activities that require some disposable income. The fact that they're poorer, without a lot of prospects of social mobility, also contributes to making them more likely to get involved in crime, of course.

* - The FBI's UCR doesn't list an 18-20 group; it lists 17-19, 20-24, and 25-29. It also lists persons under 18 and persons under 22. In short, there doesn't seem to be a way to distinguish 20 year-olds and 21 year-olds.

** - And black men aged 17-34 should be held in protective custody. (That suggestion might be vaguely funny for its absurdity if the American criminal justice system didn't seem hell-bent on doing exactly that already.)

[SteveM]

40. NY Times has a "Yee-HAH!" streak in it when it comes to the Second Amendment...

I support the repeal of D.C.'s gun-prohibitionist policies (they are clearly NOT "basic gun controls"). "Powerful semiautomatic weapons?" These guns have been around since the late l800s, and in most cases are less powerful than magnum revolvers. And where does ANY locale get off banning these weapons? Hardly "basic gun control." The NYT shows its weak Fifth Amendment stance by supporting so-called "common sense efforts" to bar the purchase of guns and "explosives" simply because someone is on an F.B.I. "terrorist watch list." This is clearly a cantilevered violation of due process. The gun show "loophole" is phony: any law-abiding individual can sell or buy a gun without a NICS test (I guess this is what constitutes "qualified"); in fact, individual buyers & sellers CANNOT access the NICS system if they wanted to. The systems is designed for dealers. If the NYT wants to ban gun shows, then say so. If they want individuals to access the NICS systems, then say so -- and make a proposal for how to do this.

As for l8-year-olds buying and carrying concealed, I have no objection. We already have Constitutional protections for 18-year-old voting rights, and they can also enter the military. Unless the NYT can show evidence as to how l8-yr-olds with guns "undermine public safety," then I consider the last reference a non sequitur and perhaps even ageist.

The NYT is fighting a culture war, and they aren't very smart about it.

[one-eyed fat man]

44. Their view of the world explains it all.

[aikoaiko]

43. Holy Crap, the NYTimes is has become a caricature of itself on gun control

Its really sad.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. Handguns for citizens.

I am mostly of the opinion that once you are a legal adult citizen of the United States of America, you should be able to do anything that any other legal adult citizen can do.

At 18 you can join the military to fight and die for your country, and you can vote. If you are adult enough to do those things, then you should be able to drink alcohol and own whatever firearm you choose also.

If they don't think that you aren't adult enough to drink and own firearms until 21, then I would say you should not be able to join the military or vote until 21, either.