Poll: Should Kids Be Allowed To Carry Guns?

[hiroshi_tea]

what's a kid really?
now, Americans can own rifles very nicely at age 18. 21 for a handgun. is that a kid?
can people make fairly good choices at age 21?
WHAT IS THE AGE GROUP WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?!

you see a lot of violence, but you can thank the gangs for that.
they're doing fairly illicit things anyways, so really, should gunners be held accountable for gangs popping caps randomly?
they typical gun enthusiast is very well behaved, because they have taken up a heavy mantle of responsibility. i don't mind if people around me are packing heat. Gun crimes are rarely committed by people with permits for legal guns.
that however cannot be said for those who got a gun through stealing or looking through their dad's stuff. which is where all this stupid publicity comes from

now, guns in school and what not
police are not readily available to help resolve incidences where self defense if required, but there's a lot of emotional turmoil on the campuses. Suicides are not a factor in this environment because the god damned depressed teens will find a way anyways.
the major concerns are shooting incidences between antagonistic students which i have no real answer to. I say it would help in some ways (a shooter is less likely to target a armed school), and be detrimental (aggression because of emotional drama and arguing).

in a campus where any student can be carrying a gun, people are less likely to act out as if they do, they're most likely going to get shot up. You act irrational and become a threat, you can be neutralized. I'm not against carrying arms in campuses nor completely for it, but i do think it's reasonable to let students apply for carrying permits with the local police.

carrying in other public places has not proven to be a problem.

 

[CmdrKinslayer]

Keeping a gun in your home is A. An invitation for trouble, B. A paranoid way to live and C. A cowardly way to handle a problem.

A. Everyone definitely knows I have a gun. And that definitely makes them want to rob me! Yeah, makes perfect sense!

B. Paranoia is safety.

C. Coward lives, the manly man who rushes at the guy with a gun using his bare hands dies. Gee, I know which one I would want to be!

 

[quack35]

No.

Simple as that.

 

[sonidraw]

If the gun had only one bullet, and anytime one of them shot the gun, everybody else could feel free to beat the living daylights out of the shooter.

Well we let them drive 3000lb cars....
Honestly I think 18 and up is an acceptable age.

Well, I'm not so sure kids should have a right to drive cars either. I consider driving to be a privilege that the DMV can take away from people at anytime for any reason.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

A. Everyone definitely knows I have a gun. And that definitely makes them want to rob me! Yeah, makes perfect sense!

B. Paranoia is safety.

C. Coward lives, the manly man who rushes at the guy with a gun using his bare hands dies. Gee, I know which one I would want to be!

I dunno. But a person invading your home knowing you have a gun, would arm themselves accordingly. Paranoia may be safety, but its a bad way to live. And yes, while cowards live, what happens if you kill the person rather than just subdue them? Not talking about the jailtime or what not, but the effect on your psyche.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

The whole point there is that guns are overcompensatory. If everyone carried a gun would it be a safer world, hell no. Plain and simple.

 

[hiroshi_tea]

yes, now how do you suggest that?
i'd be great and all, but it's like saying eliminate all narcotics
we've been saying no to heroin and marijuana, but has that ever stopped?
simple answer is no.
Banning guns does not do anything, it just proliferates the black market and sweeps over the unprotected.

do you expect China to stop their production of weapons for export and military because the UN asks them? it won't happen, we'll never get rid of guns just as we'll never get rid of nukes and drugs.

now, you can chose to stay in your lalala land or wake up and see it's a crap world
and nothing will ever be completely removed. There are people that can hurt us, which is why many of us like to remain armed if we demonstrate our responsibility to society.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

You know, I'm disappointed. I would've thought a forum that parades itself as being more "mature" would recognize that you don't have an epiphany and become wise the second you turn 18/21/whatever. Let me put this into perspective for you all:

- I am 17 years old, 11th Grade.
- I live in Northern Virginia (Fairfax County for all of you up there), one of the most liberal places in the world.
- I am taking the most rigorous classes available at my school, along with the International Baccalaureate Diploma program.
- I am earning an unweighted 4.0 GPA (Straight A's).
- I'm not a social outcast (because I know that's what you're all thinking right now).
- I like to think that I'm reasonably mature and I hate being treated like a "child". What makes that 21 year old so different than me?

Let's think about a few things for a minute: Columbine, VA Tech shootings, etc. It's the classic case of the lawful being punished because they decided to follow the law, while the unlawful have a field day. What if a student per every two or three classes was carrying? Would the situation have turned out any different? I don't know, it's mere speculation, but what I DO know is that SOMETHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. There would've been a chance, instead of being picked off at the shooting gallery. And you know what? Nobody even has to know, besides the administrators, that the kid has a gun. Bill could be carrying, and when a crisis such as the VA Tech shooting arises, he is able to protect the rest of the class. I'm not saying an elementary school or middle school kid should be allowed to carry, but when you get to the age group where you have to start taking responsibility, you grow up real fast. Checks could be involved where you had to declare your weapon to the administrators; if they felt that you were not suitable to carry, since your counselor gets to know you VERY well by that age, they would not allow you to on the school property (or perhaps refuse you ownership at all).

By the way, we aren't as fucking shallow as you think we are. We UNDERSTAND and REALIZE the consequences of our actions as well, if not better than adults (as the results are more extreme and more sudden). We aren't going to randomly point a gun at someone and pull the trigger because "we don't like them". We aren't insane, we aren't nuts, and it really irks me how half of you are implying this. Get off your soap box and go spew your hate somewhere else, because those of us who care are HIGHLY irritated by it.

To all those who are saying "WELL CHECKS IN THE PAST HAVE FAILED!!1!!1", those are usually a result of negligence (in terms of gun ownership) on the part of the examiner, or simple ignorance of the rules. If something like this were to be instated, there would be multiple checks, such as required checks and meetings with school administrators, psychologists, and a training program. It's common sense. By the way, what stops a kid who is really determined to "GET THAT FAG0T" from bringing in a gun illegally? Wouldn't he do it REGARDLESS if it's illegal or not? Murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. are all crimes too, so if you go the route that "It's a crime, so they won't do it!", then it works either way.

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting every 13 year old gets one; far from it. Only those who have shown themselves to be mature should be even considered, and that probably starts around the age of 16.

Your sensible and perfectly logical opinion is well-founded and excellently-presented, but you need to realize that a lot of people are not like you. In fact, pretty much the entire YouTube community that is under 18 presents a VERY solid argument for why children should never carry guns anyplace.

People who break laws to commit crimes will break the gun laws too, but at least when bringing guns to school is illegal the teachers can just instantly nab a kid who has one. If everyone was allowed to bring them, there'd be even less warning for when a shooting broke out. Everyone would be constantly looking over their shoulder. And God forbid a bully somehow got his hands on one. Plus, "good" kids could let their "bad" friends borrow the guns. A better idea to prevent school shootings would be to arm teachers, not students. 44 year-old Ralf the High School Professor of Biology is probably more mature than 14 year-old Bobby Johnson, regardless of whether he's a straight-A student or not.

I was a mature kid too, but most of my friends weren't and still aren't. The selection process you mentioned is just ripe for abuse, particularly if the people denied guns happened to be some sort of minority group. They could sue on the basis of discrimination (regardless of whether it was true or not) and get their guns and some money, to boot.

Bottom line: it just won't work. Oh, and stop putting words in our mouths. I, at least, did not say a single word about "hating" anyone on the basis of their age. I'm not on a soap box, and I'm not preaching. I'm telling you that this idea simply will not work. It's a "perfect world" scenario, and this is certainly no perfect world we have here. Either it's guns for all kids (not all ages of all kids, but all kids of the age specified) or guns for none of them (only way to be fair and avoid lawsuits here in America).

 

[ExodusinFlames]

9 Words: I am one of the 27 who voted yes!
They should be allowed but only IF :
- It is for hunting
- There is an electronic lock that automatically shuts the gun off after one shot is fired
- The gun needs to be unlocked by a Sheriff/Chief/High Ranking Law Enforcement Officer
- If you murder someone you are not allowed to touch a gun for the rest of your life
- If you are found touching a gun, you get "25 ta life ma dawg"
- Your not a total retard
- You don't lick windows
- Your not on "Team Retard"
- Your not "pants on head retarded" [Yay, Yahtzee Refs x2!]
- You have to have at least 3 generations of law-abiding family members who have never been arrested, never shot someone, injured, etc.
If you pass all of that, sure, I don't see why not.

Now THAT is a criteria

 

[Pantherfan72]

What do you get if you gave an entire school's child population firearms.... reality GOLD!!!!

 

[SyphonX]

I dunno. But a person invading your home knowing you have a gun, would arm themselves accordingly. Paranoia may be safety, but its a bad way to live. And yes, while cowards live, what happens if you kill the person rather than just subdue them? Not talking about the jailtime or what not, but the effect on your psyche.

The effect on your psyche? Considering I put my family's life and health above mine and even my pets, (I would die in a fire trying to save my pets)I hardly give a shit about my feelings after knowing they are all safe. Your last post was pretty intriguing, you told me to fight like a man and have a dog fight for me in the same sentence.

Jailtime, if a man invades your home with intent to harm you may kill him if necessary, this is hardly ever challenged unless it is a case of premeditation. By the way, if your dog kills the man, you're liable for jail time by using your logic.

I'm not paranoid, so stop using the beaten horse rhetoric of "gun owner = paranoid". I own a few firearms and so do thousands of other people in my area and there hasn't been a shooting in ages, let alone "trouble" of nearly any kind. Maybe people don't know how to respect or handle guns wherever it is you live because of the stigma involved in "big bad guns" and the ensuing mystery of scary guns.

The weapons in my home are beyond an afterthought and they are kept more than safe. That being said, they are there if and when I should I ever need them.

Have fun sicking your dog on an assailant because he'll most likely have a knife, so you'll probably have to watch the pet get horribly cut and stabbed. So when it's your turn, I hope you got at least a knife, bud.

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

No-one should be allowed to carry guns!

Guns should be eliminated from our societies, and never be heard from again. NO GUNS, NO WARS!

Alas but there were wars for thousands of years before guns...

But really... The amount of kids aged 5-10 on XBL playing games such as Halo, COD and Gears speak for itself. And people wonder why America has such a problem with violence...

Personally I agree with Rob in that nobody should be allowed to carry guns and they should be eliminated from society, though its not such an issue here in Australia because they are illegal for like 95% of the population and then for 4% of that remaining 5, they can only use them on a range anyways... But I still stick to my opinion that the wanker who developed firearms needs to be shot (yes I'm aware of the irony)!

 

[Jurassic Rob]

No-one should be allowed to carry guns!

Guns should be eliminated from our societies, and never be heard from again. NO GUNS, NO WARS!

Yeah, because before guns there was no concept of war. /sarcasm

Actually I was saying there should be no guns and no wars. That's why I didn't say no guns ego no war!

Additional: Sarcasm should not need to be implied, for only the stupid would not get your comment.

 

[Pantherfan72]

right on bro, right on....

 

[Deadman Walkin]

Seeing some of the fellow teens around me, to allow them to carry guns would well, I guarantee the murder rate would climb very high in a very short time.

 

[CmdrKinslayer]

People who break laws to commit crimes will break the gun laws too, but at least when bringing guns to school is illegal the teachers can just instantly nab a kid who has one. If everyone was allowed to bring them, there'd be even less warning for when a shooting broke out. Everyone would be constantly looking over their shoulder. And God forbid a bully somehow got his hands on one. Plus, "good" kids could let their "bad" friends borrow the guns. A better idea to prevent school shootings would be to arm teachers, not students. 44 year-old Ralf the High School Professor of Biology is probably more mature than 14 year-old Bobby Johnson, regardless of whether he's a straight-A student or not.

I was a mature kid too, but most of my friends weren't and still aren't. The selection process you mentioned is just ripe for abuse, particularly if the people denied guns happened to be some sort of minority group. They could sue on the basis of discrimination (regardless of whether it was true or not) and get their guns and some money, to boot.

You're missing a major point though; nobody would know the "good" kid had it, so peer pressure wouldn't be an issue. He wouldn't be allowed to carry if he made a scene out of it or was found sharing it. The teacher could still nab the kid for seeing the gun, as the kid wouldn't be allowed to show it; perhaps the teachers would have a list of those who were allowed so they didn't go apeshit after they saw it. Maybe I'm thinking of a Utopia, but I don't think much would change; nobody would know who had one besides the higher ups, and nobody would care, because as far as they know, nobody passed the test.

I was thinking about the teacher carrying as well, but then you have abuse accusations there as well. What if Bobby claims that Ralf pulled the gun on him during detention to make him behave? There's no way to verify it either way, so what happens? If it were in the hands of the students, nobody would know who was carrying or not so any claim would have a large, large probability of being false, and the student who made the accusation would be punished. As for the minority group abuse lawsuits, I don't think that would be a problem, because again, they wouldn't know who passed. For all they know, EVERYONE failed.

Bottom line: it just won't work. Oh, and stop putting words in our mouths. I, at least, did not say a single word about "hating" anyone on the basis of their age. I'm not on a soap box, and I'm not preaching. I'm telling you that this idea simply will not work. It's a "perfect world" scenario, and this is certainly no perfect world we have here. Either it's guns for all kids (not all ages of all kids, but all kids of the age specified) or guns for none of them (only way to be fair and avoid lawsuits here in America).

I was directing that comment at those who were saying "fucking kids" in so many words; apologies if it seemed like a generalized statement.

 

[hiroshi_tea]

The whole point there is that guns are overcompensatory. If everyone carried a gun would it be a safer world, hell no. Plain and simple.

I'll try my luck with a gun. You can choose not to if you want. it's your right.

it's more complex than you think really. Criminologists can attest to that.
The gun in legal hands is primarily a tool of deterrence, not of tools for aggression It does seem like you have issues of trusting other people who are armed (why so paranoid?). Anyways, there are criminals, and we all know that. you have an option when faced with a criminal. You can give them what they want. That just encourages them to rob other people which may save you in the meantime, but it's still a very selfish act on the whole as other people will continue to suffer.
You can give a fight using hand to hand combat or in this case a gun. it puts you in significant risk, but it's better than letting your life rest in the hands of a criminal. A gun can be used by the elderly and what not, so it's preferable as a deterrence tool.

Now, criminals are out there for easy money, often giving up when police come by or their lives are threatened. They prefer harmless prey, such as women walking alone, or an old woman getting into her car. However, through weapons into the equation, such as a city that allows for legal carry, a criminal will be taking a much bigger chance every time he tries to rob/burglarize, reducing the rate of crime and such. i call that safer.

by throwing a few gun owners into the mix of a population, you help protect it. not everyone would need a gun to warrant this benefit. if there's enough doubt in a criminal's mind when it comes to survival, they'd rather move to a city where there are less armed prey.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

Your last post was pretty intriguing, you told me to fight like a man and have a dog fight for me in the same sentence.

More the dog as a distraction, but sure. People will take a step back with dogs regardless. Neither here nor there. Simply pointing out the fact that there other options aside from shiny metal noise machines that blow holes in people.

Jailtime, if a man invades your home with intent to harm you may kill him if necessary, this is hardly ever challenged unless it is a case of premeditation.

Not throughout most of the world. Most of the world there is the "Over use of force" theory. Do what is needed, overkill is frowned upon. And perhaps thats the part of the issue in and of itself. In most of the G7 at least, if a person enters your home forcibly and without permission, you are limited in the amount of force able to be used. If you kill them, you can be and more than likely will be charged.

Have fun sicking your dog on an assailant because he'll most likely have a knife, so you'll probably have to watch the pet get horribly cut and stabbed. So when it's your turn, I hope you got at least a knife, bud.

See here, you've really shown your true character there. Such an good, wholesome person.