Almost never talked about: the fact that many gun related crimes are committed by someone under 21

[AlexanderA]

I think you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with whether their possession is supervised or not. It's about what we expect of our military. I think it's unethical and immoral to ask people to put their lives on the line in service of a society that is denying them the full rights of a citizen.

I was trying to address the argument that just because someone is eligible to serve in the military, that fact alone means he's old enough to have guns in civilian life. Indeed, when you join the military, you give up some of your rights as a citizen (for, example, you are subject to the UCMJ, and can't just walk off your job on a whim). Some have said that military service is a form of indentured servitude, or slavery (especially when there was a draft). Therefore, I said that it's "entirely logical" to decouple military service from an age limit for guns. Whether a 21-year-old age limit is a good idea as a matter of policy is another issue altogether. I will say that 21 years for an unsupervised purchase is not unreasonable. You have to be 21 to buy beer or cigarettes, and guns are potentially more dangerous than either of those.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Firearms Use by Offenders
(Sample: nationwide sample of prison inmates who possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned)

2004  Source of firearms possessed by state prison inmates at time of offense
11.3% Retail Purchase or trade
 7.3  - Retail store
 2.6  - Pawnshop
 0.6  - Flea market
 0.8  - Gun show
37.4% Family or friend
12.2  - Purchased or traded
14.1  - Rented or borrowed
11.1  - Other
40.0% Street/illegal source
 7.5  - Theft or burglary
25.2  - Drug dealer/off street
 7.4  - Fence/black market
11.2% Other source

I would point out that family or friend supplying guns to criminals are often criminals themselves. It will be really hard to get them and the thieves, burglars, fences, black marketeers, drug dealers, street dealers to run background checks on criminals before supplying them with guns.

The criminals will always be able to get guns illegally. So, the answer is to continually increase restrictions on legal sales until everyone is getting their guns grey or black market? I grew up under local option alcohol prohibition, 1953 to 1968, and I think bans (malum prohibitum) do not stop bad people from doing bad things (malum in se). It is voodoo criminology and it does not work. It does make the virtue signalers feel good about their self righteous selves, but it does not impact bad behavior by bad people, while infringing on the rights of the the law abiding who comply out of conscience.

I did not burn my Beatle's White Album to protest the Manson Family "Helter Skelter" murders.

My father took me to the mountain and taught me to shoot a .22 rifle when I was six. My father and uncles took me target practicing. I got a .22 rifle on Christmas when I was 15 or 16. I hunted with my uncle. When I got a job after high school, I bought a rifle at Sears at 18. I think it is offensive that 18, 19, 20 year-olds have been labeled as Prohibited Persons to be denied the right to buy a gun as a class judged to be a danger to self or others, same as adjudicated criminals under federal gun law.

 

[toivo]

I was trying to address the argument that just because someone is eligible to serve in the military, that fact alone means he's old enough to have guns in civilian life.

I know what you're addressing, and IMO you are wrong. A society that will you send you off to die in its defense but will not allow you your full rights as a citizen is a society that is exploiting you.

Indeed, when you join the military, you give up some of your rights as a citizen (for, example, you are subject to the UCMJ, and can't just walk off your job on a whim).

When you join the military, you voluntarily give up some of your rights as a citizen as part of your commitment to the service. In any case, that's irrelevant -- we're not talking about a person who is eligible to own a gun before joining the military but is not eligible after joining. It's not one of the rights you give up; in fact, if the age change goes through, it would be a right you never had.

How would you feel if the voting age were to change back to 21 but the age for military service were to remain at 18? Would it be right to ask people to die for their country before they ever had a chance to participate in its democracy?

Therefore, I said that it's "entirely logical" to decouple military service from an age limit for guns. Whether a 21-year-old age limit is a good idea as a matter of policy is another issue altogether. I will say that 21 years for an unsupervised purchase is not unreasonable. You have to be 21 to buy beer or cigarettes, and guns are potentially more dangerous than either of those.

I don't believe in that age limit either. I'm not arguing logic; I'm arguing ethics. How can we in good conscience tell people that they're old enough to die in their country's service but not old enough to drink, smoke, or buy a gun? If they're children, we shouldn't be sending them off to fight. If they're adults, we shouldn't be telling them what they can and can't buy.

 

[TexasBill]

I haven't even seen a breakdown of mass shooters who were under 21, but bought the gun legally, stole it, or had a straw purchaser.

The is only one mass shooter under the age of 21 who legally purchased his rifle - Nikolas Cruz.

 

[GAF]

Increased penalties can have unintended consequences. Massachusetts increased penalty for DUI; jail time is now punishable up to 30 months for first offense.
As a result of federal law 8 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), this means that anyone convicted of DUI in Massachusetts is now prohibited person and has lost right to possess a firearm.

It is a proven fact that the people who get multiple DUI continue to drive anyway. No law or punishment changes that. Same with criminals , gun and violence.

 

[Jim Watson]

I agree with CapnMac and Alexander. Just because you CAN join the Army at 18 does not mean you DO or SHOULD join the Army so young. And it does not mean you should be able to buy a gun.
I had guns before I was 21, but they were bought for me by my parents and I did not shoot unsupervised. Of course I got my CCW as soon as I turned 21 and bought a pistol of my own as soon as I could scare up the money.

 

[denton]

Couple of thoughts about the current situation....

In the Parkland case, the FBI failed, the sheriff failed, and the school district had an unholy alliance with law enforcement to not arrest juveniles so that their statistics would look better. So the rational course of action is to pass more restrictive laws? Isn't that like pumping up the tires on your car because the radiator coolant is low? Fix what's broke, not what isn't.

The OP's point is an excellent one. We could make firearms crimes triple illegal. We could make them sextuple illegal if carried out on Sunday or motivated by hate, and octuple illegal if it involved harming school children. I don't think octuple illegal will help. But that is what some people are trying to do.

 

[MachIVshooter]

These are the statistics that the antigunners use to boost the numbers of "children" that are victims of gun violence. I'm sorry, but a teenage drug dealer is not a "child" in the way that we normally think of a "child."

They also include "children" who are 19-25 year old dependents.

But their tactic works as a sound bite. Few people dig into the details of the statistics, and the word "children" conjures images of innocent kids 4-12 years old, rather than the teegage thugs who are the extreme majority of perps and "victims".

Furthermore, nearly 9 out of 10 murder victims have a felony history. What does that mean? If we take a raw statistical number and divide into the population, your odds of being murdered in this country are roughly one in 20,000. But if we take away those who lead a life of crime, it means your avarage law abiding citizen has a risk closer to 1 in 200K. Factor in other variables like age, sex, other demographics and lifestyle choices, we can further reduce that for most people.

In the end, death by firearm, including murder, suicide and accidental, isn't even in the top 20 causes of death for children 12 & under. Falls, drowning, auto accidents, illness, poisoning, etc. are infinitely more likely to claim the life of your (legitimate) child.

 

[entropy]

I agree with CapnMac and Alexander. Just because you CAN join the Army at 18 does not mean you DO or SHOULD join the Army so young. And it does not mean you should be able to buy a gun.
I had guns before I was 21, but they were bought for me by my parents and I did not shoot unsupervised. Of course I got my CCW as soon as I turned 21 and bought a pistol of my own as soon as I could scare up the money.

I'll tell you this; I was in ROTC at 17, went through a 'powder puff' version of basic at Summer Camp, thought that was tough (little did I know!,) then enlisted several years later at 23; I think I would rather have went through Basic at 17 or 18 than at 23.

How old were you when you enlisted, Jim?

 

[Jim Watson]

I didn't. Like I said, I did not buy a gun until I was over 21.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I agree with CapnMac and Alexander. Just because you CAN join the Army at 18 does not mean you DO or SHOULD join the Army so young. And it does not mean you should be able to buy a gun.
.

You have to register for the draft at 18 if you're male, though. That requirement would have to go away with raising the age for purchasing firearms for me to even be marginally less incensed at the notion.

 

[SharpDog]

I haven't even seen a breakdown of mass shooters who were under 21, but bought the gun legally, stole it, or had a straw purchaser.

Most are 17-39 with 20-24 being the highest bracket with a huge 'unknown' bracket (2016 data):

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251884/murder-offenders-in-the-us-by-age/

 

[Aim1]

I think if you can kill and be killed for your country carrying a gun you should be able to use a gun to protect yourself at home. You should also be able to drink if you can kill and be killed for your country. So, that would be 18.

Also, what about the 18 year old girl who's on her own, shouldn't she be able to carry a gun for protection?

My friend's ex-wife had to go to Chicago for nursing school right out of high school. Dangerous part of town. Shouldn't she be able to purchase a pistol for self-defense?


I think 18 should be the age for adulthood for everything, voting, gun purchasing, alcohol.

 

[MedWheeler]

CapnMac writes:

The Army is already having trouble with enlistees who have never thrown a ball of any kind. They do not do well on the grenade range. To the point that the Army is dropping the need to qualify on the greanade range as a requirement to pass Basic. This was largely doen as too much time by too many cadre waas being spent having to teach 18 y/o "catch." Playing Call to Duty was not cutting it.

From now on, it's Ball of Duty before Call of Duty...

 

[FROGO207]

Overall we as a nation seem to be in a slow downward spiral. Hope we can pull up before the inevitable crash though. We as the curators of the gun culture are seeing the pressure more so than in other areas because this is the front line holding that proverbial "mark in the sand". The other side understands all too well we are the ones that block the full court press towards people control.

 

[PabloJ]

So-called assault weapons are used in less than .0175% (if I’m correct) of homicides. Handguns are used in a most gun-related homicide and crimes. In most places you have to be 18 years to purchase a rifle or shotgun and 21 years old to purchase a handgun.

Almost all of the gun-related homicides in the United States are not mass-shootings, school shootings, workplace shootings, or terrorism related. Those shootings get the spotlight but they are far rarer than your everyday gun related homicide such as robbery, murder, assault, domestic, gang related, and others which make up the majority of your gun related homocides.

For many of the gun related crimes in large cities like Baltimore, Detroit, New York, and Chicago it is gang related and what no one talks about is the fact that most of the perpetrators are under 21 years old. You have many 13-19 year olds comitting murders with guns. Some are younger and some are older. But a vast majority are under 21.

What does that mean?

It means that these perpetrators can’t even own or purchase a handgun.

It means all of these gun laws, the so-called “gun show loophole”, background checks, background check improvements, raising the age to 21 for rifles, mental health checks, and all of the rest of them mean nothing since not only are these perpetrators already obtaining these weapons illegally through straw purchases, backs of car trunks in alleys, from burglaries, robberies, etc, they couldn’t even purchase them or own them in the first place. They aren’t going to walk into a gun store and ask to purchase a pistol. If a 13 year old walked into a Cabelas and attempted to purchase a pistol, I’m sure the employee would turn them away and most likely notify the authorities.


I’d like one commentator on a major news stations say:

“All of these proposed gun laws will have no effect on a large percentage of the gun related homicides because not only are these perpetrators obtaining these guns illegally in the first place, they couldn’t own or purchase them legally since they are not 21 years old and are underage. So they would never go through a mental health check, background check, or any other type of check because as soon as they attempted to buy one legally the salesperson would stop them since they are not old enough to purchase or own a handgun and thus the sale would be stopped and no background checks of any kind would be completed or even attempted!

So no matter what ‘checks’ you make, they aren’t going to go through them.”


Handgun purchase and background check laws aren’t going to affect someone who isn’t allowed to purchase a handgun in the first place but is intent on getting one.

The age to own a handgun could be 50 years old and the homicide rate in Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore would not change at all.

Someone should study where the guns come from and take steps to plug up holes through which guns end up in hands of gang members and criminals.

 

[sota]

Back when Mark Moritz was doing a column in American Handgunner, before he finished law school, he put forth the 93% rule. In places like L.A. 93% of shootouts result in a net gain to the community, both (all) combatants are criminals so it doesn't matter which gets shot.

would LOVE to have a link to the source on this.

 

[joed]

What troubles me is the school shootings, in most cases it's someone young and they copy someone before them hoping to see fame.

What I'm hoping for this time is that Nicholas Cruz gets the death penalty. Unlike other states where these crazies just end up in prison Florida is a no nonsense state and I believe Cruz will see a death penalty. The symbolic nature of the death penalty and the underlying message it sends will make it a much more attractive option to prosecutors. As well is should be.

As for deterrence, the death penalty speaks loudly and clearly.

And what about rehabilitation? Does anyone believe that Cruz can be reintegrated into society as a productive member? The very act that he engaged in makes him ineligible to serve any role in society.

 

[entropy]

As for deterrence, the death penalty speaks loudly and clearly.

I'm not so sure on that. Most of the shooters end up committing suicide when confronted with force. Cruz is an anomaly in that he almost got away with it, and had an exit strategy.

 

[Jim Watson]

There has been a lot of ink over the "botched execution" of an Alabama inmate.
He is back in a cell, waiting for the lawyers to kick it around a while longer.
He was convicted THIRTY YEARS AGO!
I submit that that alone is "cruel and unusual punishment" AND a travesty of justice. Convicted 30 years ago, he should be 29.9 years dead.

 

[CapnMac]

Someone should study where the guns come from and take steps to plug up holes through which guns end up in hands of gang members and criminals.

Well, that's actually "known."
It's a mix of two main sources.
One is family and co-habiters who simply "provide" arms, no questions asked.
The other is "dude out back of [the place]" who sells his wares "no questions asked" as well. That person's sources come from being a pawn/fence/trader in goods and wares.

Neither group is part of a larger enterprise, but are just part of the criminal underclass, and as pervasive.

Where we are lucky is in that only 9-11% of our population embraces criminality; and that only 45-55% of that group are "violent felons." That latter group being utterly divorced of obeying any laws.

 

[CapnMac]

I think 18 should be the age for adulthood for everything, voting, gun purchasing, alcohol.

This would be a noble goal, codifying a universal age of majority.
In a great society, this would involve the input of many researchers and experts. And not a bunch of lobbyist-coddled 2%ers with no dog in the hunt.
Many things would be wanted to strike that balance, too. Like, whether to sentence/charge 16 y/0 for their "adult" crimes. Or that the the car rental people have very solid eveidnce to support their polices of no rentals to under 25 y/o.

Now, your arguement has traction. We already know what the world looks like with majority at 18. At least until MADD forced everyone to raise the drinking age to 21 (to little or no effect). We allow 18 y/o to enter the "real world" as well. Rather a significant portion of those have done so successfully. We might even posit a great social good in that, by having a universal majority, we will not be encouraging lawlessness by those disenfranchised by mere fiat.

It's not something totalitarians will much abide, though. They'd much rather plebs were strictly controlled by central government so that they'd remember their place when among their "betters" (doing things like fixing their cars, repairing their HVAC, welding the plumbing at the powerplants and the like). Living in "compounds" will confound an egalitarian outlook on life.

 

[joed]

I'm not so sure on that. Most of the shooters end up committing suicide when confronted with force. Cruz is an anomaly in that he almost got away with it, and had an exit strategy.

You're right, some kill themselves and some are captured.

Having lived in FL I can say they probably will hand him the death sentence. I'd be amazed if the sentence isn't handed down.

 

[mljdeckard]

Amusing side note,

When I was in Germany, I was an assistant armorer to a HHC of an armor battalion. I had unaccompanied access to nearly 500 total weapons, everything from sidearms, to M-3 grease guns, 240s, M-2s, etc. I arrangrd to buy my first handgun from a buddy of mine, a Taurus T-92. I couldn't complete the transaction, because I was getting just prior to my 21st birthday, and they wouldn't amend my orders to let me bring it home with me. I ran down to his hometown to go get it afterward.

Good thing they kept me away from that dangerous M-9 knockoff.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting how convenient we are with changing the 'facts' to fit out beliefs, just like we suggest the opposition is doing. Already noted, despite the OP's claim, it is not in fact illegal for a person under 21 to possess a handgun. Now I understand that there have been only 120 mass shooters in 55 years.

The AR-15 was introduced to the civilian market in 1963. In the 55 years since that time, there have been 120 people that have been mass shooters.

Interesting. We have had over 30 mass shootings in the US in 2018 so far. There were a lot more over 120 in 2017 alone where 4 or more people were shot by a shooter in a single incident, not including the shooter. I am pretty sure we are not letting bad guys repeatedly conduct mass shooters in different locations over the years. Heck, a lot of them get caught, killed, or commit suicide. A bunch get convicted. So I have to wonder where this sanitized number of only 120 mass shooters in the last 55 years comes from. Is this the ridiculous Mother Jones definition where a mass shooting is only considered a mass shooting if it first qualifies as a mass murder (4 or more people, other than the shooter, shot and killed by the shooter in a single incident)? Is the 120 number only those mass shootings that made national news?

I don't see how there could have been only 120 mass shooters in the last 55 years.