As someone who just turned 20, I think this debate is really salient to me. It seems strange that we don't standardize on one age of majority like you said about the army vs private ownership. As it stands, you cannot buy a pistol until 21 so to me that reads "you can defend yourself at home with a long gun, but even if you want to do so legally, you can shove your ideas about defending yourself in public right up your ass". In other words, you are an adult at 18, but aren't trusted with the right of self defense until 21 is what this debate sounds like to me and that is an incredibly backwards idea.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!
I understand where you're coming from and thats why I brought up the examples of changing with times.
There's definitely questions about the age laws and restrictions in the United States because you are considered an adult at age 18 but you can't buy alcohol and you can't buy a handgun. Part of the reasoning for that is because an 18 year old persons brain has not fully developed yet. The jury is still out on when a human brain has fully developed but it is thought to be in their twenties. This makes sense why the alcohol law is at 21 but it doesn't explain why you still have two different ages for weapons. I still believe this is because we haven't changed with the times. The whole reason this topic is even being brought up is because of the fact that teens are legally aquiring these guns and are committing mass murderers with them. We're not seeing an epidemic where teenagers are getting beat down or severely assaulted on the streets and they don't have any means to defend themselves.
Let me ask you this... What's your thoughts on letting an 18 year old become a police officer? There's good reasons for the minimum age being 21.
I mean I completely understand the reasons for the 21 vs 18 situation from a cognitive perspective. I don't exactly think that that is why the laws for 18 are the way they are. It is not as much about overall cognitive development and intelligence than it is about recognizing cause/effect and being able to think rationally about consequences. If it were about intelligence, then there would be IQ restrictions on the exercising of certain rights. Once someone has passed 18 there is basically no chance that they haven't passed the cause/effect milestone (discounting the mentally handicapped).
By in large, the majority of gun murderers are adults. While it is easy to point to school shootings and think there is a problem with youths and guns, school shooting are statistically an anomaly when compared to overall violent crime with guns or gun homicides. That being said, late teens and young adults are more commonly the victims of crime so as far as an epidemic of teens being victimized by violent crime, there is an arguement to be made for such a thing. Generally speaking though, gang affiliations and poverty have a lot to do with it as a confounding factor.
As far as the police thing goes, I have personally no problem with the idea of an 18 year old being a cop. Problems with authority aside, if they can test as well or better than someone 21+ I would rather have them as cops than the other guys. This is coming from me who would hate 18 year old me.
Who knows exactly why the law makers did what they did? I can't speak for them, all I can do is speculate.
I'm not a neurologist either so I really don't know specific details about what percentages of what areas of the brain are still undeveloped until you're in your 20's. I just remember Dr. Oz talking about it and I figure he knows what he's talking about lol.
Obviously adults commit more murders than teenagers do. But that's veering away from the topic at hand which is teenagers legally buying AR-15's and doing these mass shootings with them.
I'm not sure where you got your statistics for making the statement about late teens and young adults being more commonly the victims of crime but I would have to strongly disagree with that. In over 12 years of working in law enforcement, at least 95% of my victims were over 21. I know, thats just me in my little section of the world and its different everywhere else. But this is a subject that is also veering away, or at least has the potential. First you would have to be more specific with how old a "young adult" is. Then you would need to decide what kind of crimes you want associated with your victims to attempt to get an accurate statistic. Which getting an accurate statistic is somewhat of a mystery anyway. But for shits and giggles, I located these murder statistics really quick. It shows 996 victims of murder between the ages of 17 and 19. From the ages of 20 and 24 it jumps to 2,431 and from 25 to 29 it's 2,071.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251878/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-age/
As far as juveniles being victims of crimes that constitute the use of deadly force, I think the number would be pretty low. Sure, kids get beat up every day during fist fights but that doesn't necessarily constitute the use of deadly force. Getting jumped by a "gang", now that's a different story.
I know you have problems with authority, I've seen your previous postings and video. I still respect your opinion even though I disagree with you. An 18 year old is definitely able to complete a police exam as well as the physical test. But there's no way in hell I would assume the liability of swearing in an 18 year old. You're talking about giving a tremendous amount of responsibility to someone that has had their driver's license for only 2 years. Hell, I think 21 is actually boarderline for becoming a cop. I was extremely mature and responsible when I started my career in my 20's and I still did stupid and immature stuff while on duty. There's no way in hell I could have done my job when I was 18.
I appreciate the civilized dialogue and it's obvious we both have our own seperate opinions about things. But do me a favor, please. I didn't comment on the video you posted the other day but I had several reservations with some things you said in the video. I really don't want to address everything and debate about it. But if you don't mind, I would greatly appreciate it if you would read an article that I wrote. I'm not asking you to upvote it or comment on it. I just want you to read it in hopes that it might get a wheel or two turning in your young mind. Many thanks for your time.
https://steemit.com/parklandschoolshooting/@bluelightbandit/not-all-cops-should-be-cops
Yeah, that's what I have heard for the age of consent and why it is 16, so I figured it would make some element of sense to apply that here as well, but I can only guess.
I understand your statement that teens are buying guns with greater capacity for death then they could really have in recent generations, but I still think it would be valuable to look at overall stats which I know is hard for me personally. It is much easier to focus down, but pulling back mass shootings like Parkland are so unlikely like I said that I am not convinced that prohibiting these guns from being bought by teens would outweigh the possible good they could have in terms of defense, hunting, or what have you. By the same token however, we can't just pretend the problem doesn't exist by stating that it is unlikely. Children used to be able to go to hardware stores and buy thompsons and we didn't see this kind of destructive intent and it would be desirable to get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I think that psychological abnormalities are probably playing a large role in that, but who knows.
As far as young adults, I saw that the biggest was in the 17-24 range for homicides, I will try to dig that up again. I classed those as young adults and for 2 of those years hypothetically under new rules, people would be legally unable to defend themselves with guns. Perhaps my perception of teen victimization is heightened because I grew up outside NYC and now live in Baltimore. Neither are particularly gang free zones.
I also have no idea what it is like to be a police officer or any of that, so I will defer to your on the clock experience about 18 year olds. Do you think there is a difference between the "bump in the night, better grab my gun" scenario and the more complex situations an officer might see on duty? To me the first one should be easier to comprehend for someone who is much younger.
Sure thing man, I really appreciate this conversation. I think you express yourself really well and it all makes sense, though I will not necessarily agree with everything you say. This is a rough exam week so I will not get time to read your article tonight most likely, but I am leaving that tab open for tomorrow. I absolutely will upvote and comment. Hell, if I dig it it'll get a resteem. No worries at all, and thank you for your time!
Catch you later
I'm not exactly positive what you mean by the bump in the night vs. the officer on duty question? I've definitely had things go bump in the night at my house where I've had to jump out of bed and go into combat mode and tactfully address the situation but there's no way to compare that with the so many different situations that I faced while being an officer. I mean during those 12 years, I have experienced so many situations where weapons were involved, either by myself or by a suspect or both. I was also on the SWAT team so I got extra tactical exposure there as well. But there was just so many different scenarios that you just can't fully train for. Everything from searching a house for a suspect to searching the woods at night time for a suspect to doing a vehicle assault, each one is different in their own right and even if you've done house searches, they will still be totally different due to the person you're hunting in the house and various other elements. I mean you can train all you want but I can promise you it will be much different in real life. That was one of the things that I absolutely loved about my job was that you never knew what to expect and it was always something new and exciting and I was kind of an adrenaline junkie. It didn't phase me to go in to dangerous situations alone and I actually welcomed it..."most of the time". I hope that answered your question, if not, let me know and I will try again.
Good luck with your exam!
I wrote a comment on Kokesh, you might find interesting. Check my post again.