Sixteen-year-old Vermonters and handguns

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Re: "In Vermont a 16 year old can't go to an R rated movie alone. But he can buy a handgun without his parents permission and conceal carry without a permit."

No, he can't. Federal law prohibits minors from buying firearms. Please get the facts straight before you spread misinformation around.

And while we're at it, Vermont has among the lowest crime rates in the nation. Go mess up your own state and leave ours alone.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Funny part is that Vermonts gun crime are amazingly low.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
18 U.S.C. § 922:

(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or
otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to
knowingly possess -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
...
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term "juvenile" means a
person who is less than 18 years of age.

And if 16-year-olds really could buy handguns in Vermont, that doesn't really help your cause much since, again, we have a very low crime rate.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
18 U.S.C. § 922:



And if 16-year-olds really could buy handguns in Vermont, that doesn't really help your cause much since, again, we have a very low crime rate.

Yes, proves my point. You have to go up to see that it is not talking about private collectors in that section. See where the section starts "If the licensee knowingly transfers a firearm to such other person and..."

As to the fact that it doesn't help my cause, my cause is that people shouldn't carry ccw. Which the overwhelming number of people do not in Vermont.

Vermont spends money on education to control gun carrying. It also spends money on warning about the danger of accidental discharge and the danger of being armed during commonplace disputes that can be escalated to gun violence by a guns availability.

We also have perhaps the best mental health care in the country.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Vermont? Heh, I lived near Middlebury.

He's complaining about teens having guns, but hes safer with him than in the big city of his choice. Foolishness.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Yes, proves my point. You have to go up to see that it is not talking about private collectors in that section. See where the section starts "If the licensee knowingly transfers a firearm to such other person and..."

As to the fact that it doesn't help my cause, my cause is that people shouldn't carry ccw. Which the overwhelming number of people do not in Vermont.

Vermont spends money on education to control gun carrying. It also spends money on warning about the danger of accidental discharge and the danger of being armed during commonplace disputes that can be escalated to gun violence by a guns availability.

We also have perhaps the best mental health care in the country.

Most states require handgun training and proficiency testing before issuing a concealed license/permit but don't let that prevent you from stating more lies and half truths.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Yes, proves my point. You have to go up to see that it is not talking about private collectors in that section. See where the section starts "If the licensee knowingly transfers a firearm to such other person and..."

As to the fact that it doesn't help my cause, my cause is that people shouldn't carry ccw. Which the overwhelming number of people do not in Vermont.

Vermont spends money on education to control gun carrying. It also spends money on warning about the danger of accidental discharge and the danger of being armed during commonplace disputes that can be escalated to gun violence by a guns availability.

We also have perhaps the best mental health care in the country.

People can carry in Vermont at their pleasure, not the governments nor you. So being able to carry is not a factor unless it's a positive one. You don't control them and yet they cause no harm. Must be frustrating for you.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Yes, proves my point. You have to go up to see that it is not talking about private collectors in that section. See where the section starts "If the licensee knowingly transfers a firearm to such other person and..."

That's section "(t)". The rules about minors are in section "(x)".

More:

Sales between individuals

...

In a private transaction, federal law prohibits the transfer or the sale of a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to individuals under 18 years of age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States


Federal law prohibits, with certain exceptions, the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18.
http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-firearms-policy-summary/

As to the fact that it doesn't help my cause, my cause is that people shouldn't carry ccw. Which the overwhelming number of people do not in Vermont.

There's no license required, so I doubt they really know how many people carry concealed in the state.

The point you seem to be missing is that, despite your inaccurate and inflammatory sig line, there isn't a big issue with gun violence in Vermont.

Vermont spends money on education to control gun carrying. It also spends money on warning about the danger of accidental discharge and the danger of being armed during commonplace disputes that can be escalated to gun violence by a guns availability.

Funny that I've lived here for a decade and a half and never once seen any of these warnings or education programs.

We also have perhaps the best mental health care in the country.

Are you a Vermonter? If you were, you'd know what a laugh that line is. Our mental health institutions were never that great to begin with, and the state has been in outright crisis mode since Irene.

I live in Bennington, I think the fifth largest town in the state. My understanding is that at this moment there is not a single practicing licensed full-time MD psychiatrist (not psychologist) in this entire town of over 20,000 people. Yeah, we have the "best mental health care in the country". What a crock.
 
Last edited:

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Yes, proves my point. You have to go up to see that it is not talking about private collectors in that section. See where the section starts "If the licensee knowingly transfers a firearm to such other person and..."

As to the fact that it doesn't help my cause, my cause is that people shouldn't carry ccw. Which the overwhelming number of people do not in Vermont.

Vermont spends money on education to control gun carrying. It also spends money on warning about the danger of accidental discharge and the danger of being armed during commonplace disputes that can be escalated to gun violence by a guns availability.

We also have perhaps the best mental health care in the country.

So youre pro rape/robbery/murder then?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. If techs opposes CCW, fine. But the claim in his sig is incorrect and should be changed.

Speaking of facts...

Vermont:
- Gun laws: pretty much non-existent
- Gun ownership rate: 42%
- Violent crime rate: 137 per 100k
- Ratio of crime to gun ownership rate: 326

District of Columbia:
- Gun laws: severely restrictive
- Gun ownership rate: 3.8% (more than 10x lower than Vermont)
- Violent crime rate: 1,508 per 100k (more than 10x higher than Vermont)
- Ratio of crime to gun ownership rate: 39,684

Relative ratio of crime to gun ownership rate between the two areas: 121:1.

Sources:

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. If techs opposes CCW, fine. But the claim in his sig is incorrect and should be changed.

Speaking of facts...

Vermont:
- Gun laws: pretty much non-existent
- Gun ownership rate: 42%
- Violent crime rate: 137 per 100k
- Ratio of crime to gun ownership rate: 326

District of Columbia:
- Gun laws: severely restrictive
- Gun ownership rate: 3.8% (more than 10x lower than Vermont)
- Violent crime rate: 1,508 per 100k (more than 10x higher than Vermont)
- Ratio of crime to gun ownership rate: 39,684

Relative ratio of crime to gun ownership rate between the two areas: 121:1.

Sources:

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Clearly DC needs more gun laws then.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
Uncomfortable fact: you can have no restrictions at all on guns and a generally lax legal system with no problems to speak of when your state is as homogenous as Vermont. 98% white and a low population to boot? MUCH can be permitted in such an environment.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Uncomfortable fact: you can have no restrictions at all on guns and a generally lax legal system with no problems to speak of when your state is as homogenous as Vermont. 98% white and a low population to boot? MUCH can be permitted in such an environment.

Shh, observing facts in a common sense manner is racist, didn't you know?

Anyway, on topic, DC crime would probably DECREASE significantly if all non-felons were allowed CC at will.

Gun free zone = humans as prey, sad to say.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
So OP you mean that guy who made those ridiculous claims is lying just to promote his agenda? Cant believe people are that desperate

Good job OP for exposing him!
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Uncomfortable fact: you can have no restrictions at all on guns and a generally lax legal system with no problems to speak of when your state is as homogenous as Vermont. 98% white and a low population to boot? MUCH can be permitted in such an environment.

So white and rural?

Hmm, isn't that the conservative white males that are suppose to be the source of all our problems?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Uncomfortable fact: you can have no restrictions at all on guns and a generally lax legal system with no problems to speak of when your state is as homogenous as Vermont. 98% white and a low population to boot? MUCH can be permitted in such an environment.

Vermont is very liberal, too. That helps mitigate the violence that we see from more conservative white men and their ideology.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
Vermont is very liberal, too. That helps mitigate the violence that we see from more conservative white men and their ideology.

Vermont can afford to be liberal because it's easy to maintain your delusions that all people behave identically when you are never exposed to anyone in any quantity that would disprove it.

This is why the Midwest also tends to have much more progressive views in the area of race than the south does. And than most people realize. Midwest has a lot of red states, true, but their naivety re: race is much more akin to Vermont or Maine than southern red states.

When you really get a good indication is when you look at the cultures groups create when they're left to their own devices, are the majority, and this situation has time to play out.

Any race can field a small number of highly impressive individuals to "put the best face forward" because all races have all types of people within.

But do they all produce all types at the same rate or in the same quantity? Ahhh now that is the interesting question. A question with profound importance to our future if we are wrong on it.

Can western civ continue in the style to which we've become accustomed technologically speaking, culturally speaking, crime rate wise... Etc if we swap out whites for other groups beyond a certain level? If its Asians I have no doubt. Others? I have grave doubts.

An honest look at Chicago, Detroit, parts of California... and the ancestral home areas for those groups across the world... will give any honest, sober person similar doubts.

Are black luminaries, for instance, the intellectual equivalent of Yao Ming in his height or a white football player or sprinter who can hold his own?

Worth considering. And there is much data and evolutionary reason to suspect so. Ice age environment and wildly different survival pressures don't leave people unchanged. To survive in them a group must adapt and this leaves a legacy genetically. Good reasons to suspect such an environment changed Caucasians and Asians in temperament, conflict resolution, breeding and child rearing behaviors... and intellectual capacity on average.
 
Last edited: