I can sympathize with the idea that those 18-21 should not be any more restricted in gun ownership that anybody else. Those 18-21 are considered by law to be adults, and, if the principle for gun ownership is that people have a right to basic protection for their property or themselves (at least while on their property), certainly there are those ages 18-21 who live in their own property.
If I were a silly conspiracy theorist I'd argue that the misdirection on gun control to those aged 18-21 and those with recognized mental health problems, neither cohort of which are significant causes of mass shootings (maybe those 18-21 are more likely to be in illegal gangs, but I think there are already laws to address those people) is so that after these laws are passed and gun violence doesn't decrease much, that those anti gun control can claim 'we told you gun control doesn't work.'
In this lawsuit itself though, maybe I don't understand U.S law, but I don't see how the NRA itself has legal standing on this. Maybe the NRA is backing a person between the ages of 18-21 here, but there is no mention of that in the story.
I can sympathize with the idea that those 18-21 should not be any more restricted in gun ownership that anybody else. Those 18-21 are considered by law to be adults, and, if the principle for gun ownership is that people have a right to basic protection for their property or themselves (at least while on their property), certainly there are those ages 18-21 who live in their own property.
ReplyDeleteIf I were a silly conspiracy theorist I'd argue that the misdirection on gun control to those aged 18-21 and those with recognized mental health problems, neither cohort of which are significant causes of mass shootings (maybe those 18-21 are more likely to be in illegal gangs, but I think there are already laws to address those people) is so that after these laws are passed and gun violence doesn't decrease much, that those anti gun control can claim 'we told you gun control doesn't work.'
In this lawsuit itself though, maybe I don't understand U.S law, but I don't see how the NRA itself has legal standing on this. Maybe the NRA is backing a person between the ages of 18-21 here, but there is no mention of that in the story.