RE: Changing The Legal Age To Buy A Rifle....Good or Bad Idea?
Well.....I see you're just writing about super simple subjects. LOL
So much can be gone through and it's almost dinner, but a few thoughts.
I hear what you're saying, but I think a much greater thing affecting this, a "change of the times" is not the weapons, but the attitude or level of maturity of youth today. I know this kind of follows the old joke about suddenly sounding like your father, but it's what I've seen.
The gun issues happening today, didn't happen the same way 20 years ago. But to disagree with you, ALL these types of weapons existed. The AR-15 is almost 60 years old, AK-47 well you know what the 47 is. Perhaps not as prevalent in 1968 when the 18 yr old requirement was put into effect....but Colt was selling the AR-15 "sporter" at that time and had been for an undetermined number of years prior to 68.
So throughout the preceding years, the weapon and it's "types" were readily available. My first was a Mini 14. Yet at some point things changed....and it wasn't the firearms or their availability that changed. One can debate a multitude of things that may have.
HOWEVER.....it also is a fact that things have changed. Perhaps another possibility is not changing the age, but the requirements for that age. You pointed out the training of kids joining the military....perhaps adding required training and testing, both written and practical. Military service being taken into account.
I don't know how effective having a "cosigner" would be in stopping anything. Parents that disagree with the law would simply sign for their 18 yr old without necessarily making them learn anything about the weapon.
Much to think on.
Ahhhh, come on man, give me a little more credit than that. I know there were semi-auto's back then. When I said we didn't have weapons like these back then, I was referring to modernized M4 variants with 16" barrels or less and all of the other compact military style weapons with extremely high capacity magazines or drums.
I bet that Mini 14 was a huge step up from the flint lock you were issued in the military, wasn't it? ;)
You mentioned the attitude and maturity level has changed and that could be a factor. That's all the more reason for a co-signer. You mentioned training and testing. Just imagine how much it would cost to implement that. And what good would training do for someone wanting to go shoot up a school, be more efficient at it?
It's okay to disagree but I honestly think that having someone sign a document saying that the buyer of that weapon is believed to be of sound mind would make people really think before signing that paper for someone, even if they wern't exactly law abiding citizens. Sure, it wouldn't solve the problem totally but what if it stopped just ONE shooting from happening? Wouldn't it be worth it? It didn't infringe on anyones rights and it didn't cost a shit load in tax dollars to implement.
The gun is not the problem. I don't want to see anymore gun control laws being passed to where it's going to make it more complicated for me to make a purchase. I don't want to see military style weapons banned. I don't want to see high capacity mags banned. But if we don't at least try a little something to slow down the rate of mass shootings, then that is what is going to happen! Might as well put Bill Clinton back in office and let the banning begin.
But this was just an idea I had that I thought would possibly prevent a troubled teen from rushing out and making a big mistake. Thanks for your input.