Raising the Age to Purchase a Firearm Will Do Nothing, but They Know That

AP Photo/Wilson Ring

After the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, that took the lives of 19 elementary school children and two teachers, the idea that we should increase the age from 18 to 21 in order to purchase firearms was, once again, floated around.

(READ: Progressive Logic Is Rather Fluid When It Comes to Young People)

On the surface, it seems like a solid idea. Teenagers did mass shootings so if we make teenagers unable to purchase firearms then no more mass shootings. However, the surface is an incredibly shallow depth and if you want to find the solution to a much deeper issue then shallow solutions aren’t what we should go for.

Stopping teenagers from buying rifles isn’t going to stop mass shootings. This was actually explained by none other than a source leftists love, Vox. In fact, it was data from Everytown for Gun Safety that Vox quoted to arrive at the conclusion that age-restricting semi-auto rifles is a useless idea:

According to information collected by Everytown for Gun Safety, since 2009 there have been 156 mass shooting incidents — defined as four or more people shot and killed, not including the shooter.

Eleven mass shootings have been committed by men 21 and younger, and two of those (or 1.3 percent of the total) were committed using an assault rifle. Meanwhile, only one of those rifles were purchased legally.

A semiautomatic rifle was used in 11 of the 156, or 7 percent of events.

While two mass shootings might have been prevented by the change, this reform does nothing about the other 154.

Here’s some food for thought…

When Democrats quote gun stats, they love to get them from leftist organizations such as Everytown or Mom’s Demand Action. This means that they have this info and know that when it comes to aging out purchases of firearms, doing so will do little to nothing to stop mass shootings.

So if they have this info why suggest it? Why go down that path?

The answer is pretty easy when you think about it. The point of gun control was never to make the nation safer. As myself and other writers at RedState have pointed out multiple times, the answers to stopping school shootings, for instance, are obvious. Create more locked down schools during the day, place armed officers within the building, and also train and arm teachers who want to carry. Guaranteed, mass shootings would become a lot more difficult a prospect for would-be mass shooters.

But leftists don’t want to institute this obvious fix. The answer is always “punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty” when it comes to shooters. They want to ban guns, or ban certain guns, or ban the purchase of guns through red flag laws. None of these things will actually do anything to stop gun crime, not to mention the fact that this wishlist is nigh impossible to create and enforce.

What the attempted drop in age is going to accomplish is something completely unhelpful to the American people but absolutely helpful to the left.

It’s social conditioning.

It’s the boiling frog approach. Sit a frog in a pot of room temp water and slowly elevate the temperature and you can cook it alive while it remains completely oblivious. By age-restricting guns to 21, you can condition the nation to give you little victories. A little advancement here, a little advancement there, and soon you’ve nickle’d and dime’d the nation into full-on destruction of their rights.

Not to mention the fact that you’ve programmed the youth to believe that they’re still not fully capable of making their own decisions. Funny enough, they can still join the military and use firearms there, but whatever happens under government control is okay with the government.

It’s all a ploy. Don’t fall for it.


Trending on RedState Videos