Statesian here. There are a CRAPTON of mass shootings here. If we do nothing about guns, the shootings will still happen. What is the leftist answer for reducing mass shootings without disarming the proletariat?

  • Beat_da_Rich
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    In general, I would also support additional barriers for firearm ownership under the age of 25. Not make it illegal persay, but give some extra hoops to jump through.

    Most of these mass shooters are men in their early twenties, where the decision-making part of the brain is not fully developed and most are in a very vulnerable transition stage in life.

    • ComradeSalad
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ehhhh I’m not sure about this one either. If a person can sign up for the military at 18, own a car, vote, sign legal contracts, etc, or buy alcohol and tobacco at 21, then limiting firearms to 25 seem infantilizing and misguided.

      It’s a similar argument that a lot of right wingers use to say “raise the voting age”.

      Also the brain development is a decent point, but its a lot more overblown then people make it out to be. 25 is actually the general average as people can be done at 22 or need until 27, and the level of development relies more on life experience and education then it does on some brain wiring.

      If a person is hellbent on killing people like a mass shooter, then they will use anything they can get their hands on, hence why they’ve used cars before for example. Limiting everyone based off of a handful of the most deranged people is a bad idea.

      • Beat_da_Rich
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Fair points. I didn’t say I supported banning young people from firearms though, but would entertain giving them extra scrutiny depending on the legislation.

      • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Ehhhh I’m not sure about this one either. If a person can sign up for the military at 18,

        Well… to add some context to this, if you’re in the military you don’t walk around every day with a weapon/ammo. You are not allowed to keep personal firearms on your person while one duty or on post without a really REALLY good reason. You are not allowed to store privately owned firearms in your barracks or on post housing (and probably off post housing too but you’d have to piss off all sorts of people to get them to comb through your house looking for stuff to gig you on). So its not that far out there.

        • ComradeSalad
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The point is that in this hypothetical, you can go and use a gun, along with grenades, rockets, missiles, bombs, jets, tanks, gunships, helicopters, ships, and satellites to kill those your government has declared enemies. All at 18 years old.

          But for some reason a civilian can’t own a gun till 25?

          • D61 [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Correct, its not that big of a deal to live in a society organized around the organized use of firearms instead of unorganized individual gun ownership.