• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It's Not Paranoia If It's Happening

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ElMonoDelMar said:
Were there states that had 21+ handgun ownership laws in place prior to this last sweep of legislation? I'm genuinely curious about this as I know it's not the case for Illinois, but haven't had time to research other state laws.
Click to expand...

Not that I can recall off the top of my head but I'd have to look deeper to really be sure.
 
ElMonoDelMar said:
Were there states that had 21+ handgun ownership laws in place prior to this last sweep of legislation? I'm genuinely curious about this as I know it's not the case for Illinois, but haven't had time to research other state laws.
Click to expand...
Iirc, Florida is 21+ for handgun ownership.
 
feralkid said:
You can serve as a tank gunner as well, but that doesn't mean you get to park an Abrams in your driveway.
Click to expand...
There are laws against that, but taking legal weapons is another matter. That would be like telling you, you can no longer date men.
 
ElMonoDelMar said:
I guess that was my original point. Even if Bruce signs the law it's not bringing rifle ownership even with the standard of handgun ownership.
Click to expand...

How about this: I favor a 21 age restriction on firearms sales and possession in general (with a few exceptions). Any move to that end I'd generally consider positive from my view. This particular piece of legislation won't become law but something similar stands a good chance next year if one of the Democrats ends up in the governor's office which is a likely outcome right now.
 
Challenger said:
So you "people" think the criminals are going to give up thier guns? This law only tramples the rights of the law abiding citizens. As for the source, there are tons of them but the libtard media isn't covering it. I guess they don't care to inform us of our rights being taken away.
Click to expand...

Criminals guns? Pft. Eventually they'll stop working. Just look at how they hold and handle their weapons...

Pst, no one is coming to take yours or my legal guns away...
 
LOL at the source of information. "It's not paranoia, look at this paranoid propaganda/conspiracy site."

May as well have linked to Infowars FFS.

Meanwhile, confiscating items from people who are not legally allowed to own them is NOT a violation of anyone's rights.
 
boomerang said:
I'm curious what your reasoning is for that specific age. What results do you expect? If those results are not achieved, what do you see as being the next step?
Click to expand...

People under 25 are responsible for a disproportionate amount of America’s gun violence. According to data collected by the FBI, nearly 50 percent of all gun homicides are committed by people younger than 25. Most of those perpetrators are 18 to 24.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ngs-raise-the-gun-age/?utm_term=.3c8acbbd45c3

Therefore, by narrowing the number of people in that age group who have access to guns by raising the age to 21 we will lower gun related crimes.
 
giphy.gif


Does this mean the race war is coming, too?
 
Why not make the age for both guns and alcohol 25? Seems like that would save a ton of lives. I'm guessing that wouldn't be as popular as it would affect many more people and the pols wouldn't be able to push it through.
 
ElMonoDelMar said:
Why not make the age for both guns and alcohol 25? Seems like that would save a ton of lives. I'm guessing that wouldn't be as popular as it would affect many more people and the pols wouldn't be able to push it through.
Click to expand...
The companies that make money from those industries would never permit it. The public opinion would never be a factor.
 
BAMAVOO said:
There are laws against that, but taking legal weapons is another matter. That would be like telling you, you can no longer date men.
Click to expand...

Your argument is pure shit. Now, perhaps you are aware of that and think you're making a comparable argument, but you are not, at all.

Amused said:
People under 25 are responsible for a disproportionate amount of America’s gun violence. According to data collected by the FBI, nearly 50 percent of all gun homicides are committed by people younger than 25. Most of those perpetrators are 18 to 24.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ngs-raise-the-gun-age/?utm_term=.3c8acbbd45c3

Therefore, by narrowing the number of people in that age group who have access to guns by raising the age to 21 we will lower gun related crimes.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with there being low age restrictions on getting to shoot guns (like at regulated gun ranges), but upping the age of gun ownership. Let people be able to have their fun shooting but in controlled environment.

I straight up would also be in favor of raising the driving age limits. Likewise, I say let them have access to places where they can get their driving thrill at ages even below the current legal ones, but in controlled environments.

I find it bizarre how often I hear from people, that are totally for upping regulations on driving/licensing for driving, they'll make analogies between guns and cars, but they're for more regulations on one but psychotically opposed to basically any on the other. Its just another weird hypocrisy and lack of realization of basic logic that I see with gun nuts.
 
FIVR said:
This is great news. Not sure about the source but hopefully they take all the guns in Illinois. That state has been suffering from terrible gun violence.


It's been proven by science that less guns = less violence.
Click to expand...

That same science says less black people = less violence. You may want to get a little deeper into the details.
 
fskimospy said:
The science does not say that as there is no plausible established causal mechanism, unlike with reductions in lethal means.
Click to expand...

Huh? Science does not need to have a plausible causal mechanism to observe something. For a very long time we had no reason for what causes mass, and yet we knew about mass. How about what causes energy, we have no clue as to what causes that. Are you saying energy is not a thing because there is no plausible established causal mechanism? I'm very confused as to your statement here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

"The final GEE negative binomial model revealed 6 significant predictors of firearm homicide rates: gun ownership proxy (IRR = 1.009; 95% CI = 1.004, 1.014), percentage Black, income inequality, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, and incarceration rate (Table 2). This model indicates that for each 1 percentage point increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

Are you saying this did not find that the % of Black people in the population was a predictor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top