RE: Changing The Legal Age To Buy A Rifle....Good or Bad Idea?
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!