So you're telling me there aren't any politicians who are against opiate use, heroin, cigarettes and guns that you can vote for?

According to this, there were 4,235 drug-related deaths in 2015 for 15-24 year olds. According to the above, there were 4,140 firearm homicides in 2015 for 15-24 year olds.

@ArguingWAristotleTiff, seems like guns are just as much a problem as drugs are.

I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility. If you are 18 and get a DUI they don't put your parents in jail because you are 18. If at 17 you get a DUI, you loose your license till you are 21. The age of 18 makes legal sense in the age of enlistment into our military as well where they will be trained and issued a fire arm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes doesn't "correlate to the age of responsibility" (i.e. 18), in what Kafka-esque world do we live in where owning a gun does?

I am absolutely sicken that this is a conversation we've been having for years now. It continues to happen, and yet nothing is done, and people callously shrug their shoulders. How the hell are we talking about opiates now, as if these are mutually exclusive issue?

I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility. If you are 18 and get a DUI they don't put your parents in jail because you are 18. If at 17 you get a DUI, you loose your license till you are 21. The age of 18 makes legal sense in the age of enlistment into our military as well where they will be trained and issued a fire arm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You live in Arizona don't you? Don't you have to be 21 to buy alcohol? Strange that it's higher.

So you're telling me there aren't any politicians who are against opiate use, heroin, cigarettes and guns that you can vote for? — Benkei

Not all in one Presidential candidate no.

According to this, there were 4,235 drug-related deaths in 2015 for 15-24 year olds. According to the above, there were 4,140 firearm homicides in 2015 for 15-24 year olds.

@ArguingWAristotleTiff, seems like guns are just as much a problem as drugs are. — Michael

Agreed

Not all in one Presidential candidate no. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Hillary. Gun control and a plan for the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic.

If drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes doesn't "correlate to the age of responsibility" (i.e. 18), in what Kafka-esque world do we live in where owning a gun does? — Maw

In the USA Maw, where the right to own a firearm at age 18 is a protected right until someone proves themselves incapable of possessing that right.

I am absolutely sicken that this is a conversation we've been having for years now. It continues to happen, and yet nothing is done, and people callously shrug their shoulders. How the hell are we talking about opiates now, as if these are mutually exclusive issue? — Maw

I was responding to Benkei's observation that children are dying in the streets as a result of the abuse of firearms with the children that are dying in the streets as a result of the abuse of Opiates. I was stating what epidemic I was willing to fight but that does not relieve me of teaching my children how to responsibly handle a firearm, the knowledge of another firearm present and what to do in the event of an active shooter, BEFORE they are in the situation they might encounter.

Hilary Gun control and a plan for the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic. — Michael

Hilary Clinton's Democratic Party Leader slipped within the first few seconds of this video. Make no doubt about it, Democrats would like nothing more than "the slippery slope" of gun control to turn into gun confiscation.

You live in Arizona don't you? Don't you have to be 21 to buy alcohol? Strange that it's higher. — Michael

I am not understanding your question. Yes you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol but if you are caught driving under the influence at any age before 21, you loose your license to drive until you are 21.

I am not understanding your question. Yes you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol but if you are caught driving under the influence at any age before 21, you loose your license to drive until you are 21. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You said "I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility."

I'm pointing out that it's strange that at 18 you are legally responsible and can buy a gun but you can't buy alcohol.

Make no doubt about it, Democrats would like nothing more than "the slippery slope" of gun control to turn into gun confiscation. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't know about that. Seems like a far too risky move in American culture. Both Hillary and Obama have stated that they're against confiscating all guns.

But are you saying that it's better to allow domestic abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns that to risk the chance that all guns will be confiscated?

In the USA Maw, where the right to own a firearm at age 18 is a protected right until someone proves themselves incapable of possessing that right. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Can you not understand the insanity of this statement? "Solving" the problem after it occurs only enables it to occur endlessly. Which it has. The 2nd Amendment is not enshrined in divine inalienability.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to own guns. Guns are much more likely to be used as a tool for suicide or homicide than for self-defense. I think hunting is moronic. Civilian militias would never triumph over a tyrannical Government with the US army's backing. Luckily for you and others, I am not a politician. That said, the idea that the objective for Democrats is to confiscate all firearms (as if there were no differing views within the party, or among their voters) is paranoid and conspiratorial. As a matter of fact, a majority of Americans, including those who own guns, believe that new gun laws will not interfere with the right to own guns, and agree with other sensible regulations.

No it doesn't. Many of the school shootings are suicides, for example. — Thorongil

okay so we should just let it happen either way? suicide or murder. it's still a problem

So they will undercut their own sales? Fat chance. — schopenhauer1

The sale is already made. The buyer and the weapon are then being monitored.

I think one practical step that even the NRA deviants could agree to would be that the name and image of mass shooters will never be circulated in mass media.

Make no doubt about it, Democrats would like nothing more than "the slippery slope" of gun control to turn into gun confiscation. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Glad to hear someone has some sense.

This doesn't obviate the issue. — Maw

Yes it does, inasmuch as the claim I was responding to is false.

okay so we should just let it happen either way? suicide or murder. it's still a problem — David Solman

Some problems can't be solved without creating or exacerbating others. Your question is hopelessly naive, as if it's easily in our (whoever this plural determiner is) collective power to simply let or not let bad things happen in the world. I assume you mean more gun control laws, but as I have gone over many times before, I fail to see how a law will stop any and all such cases of mass shootings. The most proximate cause for the present shooting is the FBI's incompetence. There were also dozens of phone calls to the police about the boy and dozens of visits to his home by sheriff's deputies, and yet no action was taken. But of course, it's all due to a lack of "better" gun control laws.

But are you saying that it's better to allow domestic abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns that to risk the chance that all guns will be confiscated? — Michael

Michael, your question is making me think.
We have laws in place to remove current firearms from and remove the right to buy future firearms, from those convicted of domestic abuse and those who are diagnosed as mentally ill but as I have suggested before most who want to do harm with a firearm will find one illegally.

Having said that: I still don't have a solid answer as to which risk is greater to me.

Yes the FBI is at fault but why are guns so easily obtainable? Because they are legal. Name a country where guns are illegal that have this problem. It's so frustrating that people just blame everything else other than the gun. This country glorifies guns to a disgusting point, it is a weapon that kills i do not understand the love for it, it's sick. Yes it's the person carrying the gun but if that person didn't have a gun it would be a different story entirely. I'm sick of seeing people support current gun laws when it's so clear that they need to change and why is it even a conversation that needs debate? Why would you want to carry such a weapon around anyway and if you really really do it for "protection" then you should be behind the support for better gun laws.

It is strange that earlier in this thread so many people point to England's gun laws as an example to be followed to reduce gun violence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

The statistics seem to be showing that there is a problem with those laws application as well.

this is from 2009, also a conservative tabloid paper. clearly slamming the labour party like most of the propaganda from the conservative party papers. this is not a trusted source. England is a great example for the simple following fact, guns are illegal.

fact is, every country in the world has a gun problem but none like america. no other country in the world has as many mass shootings and it is the country that promotes guns the most. if you cant see a problem you are blind.

Name a country where guns are illegal that have this problem. — David Solman

What do you mean by "this problem?" Mass shootings? The obvious response is that mass casualty attacks have continued to occur in countries with strict gun control laws. Despite cries of being a red herring, unless you think mass death by firearms is somehow worse than mass death by other means, then in the wake of attacks like the one under discussion here, we should be focused on reducing mass casualty attacks. Passing stricter gun control laws will only make it harder for nonviolent, law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms. It won't stop all future mass shootings or mass casualty attacks. And again, if stopping those isn't your goal, then you don't really care about solving the problem and are only concerned with winning an ideological war due to a peculiar anti-gun pathology.

It's so frustrating that people just blame everything else other than the gun. — David Solman

Guns don't magically sprout legs and shoot people. They require human beings with certain motivations to pull the trigger. It's a cliche but it's true: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are merely a means of killing people. An effective means? You bet. But so are homemade bombs and poisons, as is ramming planes through buildings, driving trucks into pedestrians, etc. I doubt you are in favor of banning the legally obtainable raw materials that go into making homemade bombs and poisons, or planes, trucks, etc.

I own a 38 and I love skeet shooting with a well made shotgun, but there is simply no way a 19 year old should be allowed to legally purchase and AR-15, it is really does not make any sense to me. This rife has no good reason, except to kill a lot of people quickly,

The obvious response is that mass casualty attacks have continued to occur in countries with strict gun control laws. — Thorongil

Bullshit. In the philosophical sense.

They have. QED.

It won't stop all future mass shootings or mass casualty attacks. And again, if stopping those isn't your goal, then you don't really care about solving the problem and are only concerned with winning an ideological war due to a peculiar anti-gun pathology. — Thorongil

Nirvana fallacy. That it won't stop all isn't that it won't stop some. And surely doing something is better than doing nothing?

What do you mean by "this problem?" Mass shootings? The obvious response is that mass casualty attacks have continued to occur in countries with strict gun control laws. Despite cries of being a red herring, unless you think mass death by firearms is somehow worse than mass death by other means, then in the wake of attacks like the one under discussion here, we should be focused on reducing mass casualty attacks.

I don't really understand the logic here. You're saying that because gun crime will just be replaced with non-gun crime, it isn't worth doing something about gun crime? Because it's not as if after doing something about gun crime we can't also do something about knife crime (or whatever).

Passing stricter gun control laws will only make it harder for nonviolent, law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms.

Depends on what they are. If they're just to make certain types of weapons illegal, like semi-automatic rifles, close loopholes in internet sales, increase the legal age, and have restrictions on risky groups (like the mentally ill), then that shouldn't make it harder for non-violent, law-abiding, capable adults from acquiring guns of some type.

An increase of guns is correlated with an increase in gun violence. This is a fact across countries and even across states. It would stand to reason, then, that an increase in guns, even in the hands of "good guys" (the epitome of moronic ideas) would lead to increased gun violence.