Printable View
totally shatzy drugs and alcohol might accentuate an emotion, mood or tendency but in no way does it create it that violent tendency as in the youths case was already there and he obviously has no respect for the elderly no drug will change that it is a trait he has learned
<--------- getting scared I actually see well formed comments and returns drawn out in lengthy post. **silently applauds**
Anyhow ... Don't get me wrong by my 1st post meandering towards raising the legal ages for topics at hand. Though I would believe from a certain stand point if you take range of ages and say these people are allowed and these people are not allowed you will always get the few who don't fit within the spectrum. Though on a whole I think you may accomplish the goal you seek, just not get the result you wished. ** confusing wording**
Example : Law makers decide to raise the age to purchase guns to 21. They do this with the wish of keeping guns purchased by minors down also thinking crime and death and murder will follow. The law is passed and yes the actual number of guns "purchased" by under aged people went down. Yet crime rose from gun theft, illegally purchased guns and those guns taken from adults to commit crimes.
So did the law do what it was suppose to? Yes, It keep minors from BUYING guns legally.
Did it accomplish what the wanted.. ie lower death rate, crime rate etc... ? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
As for the sex and drinking issues. I think it is odd that all the things I did as a kid I now see as problems. But don't get me wrong... when the 17 yr cashier winks and smiles I am thinking anything but raising any other then what instinctively just arose in the jeans.
CYA [img]eek.gif[/img]
i see your point but again, the issue about the
crime thing didn't happen because the age limit
was changed... it was an issue on guns.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
the plastered 13 year old punching the old person
is not a reflection on the drug nor the age limit
but a reflection on what he values....
or perhaps... what he was taught to value?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's sort of what i mean, the problem lies with the person, and drugs, alcohol and cars will probably only lead to more dangerous tendencies. But then you put an age limit on him, which will only 'hold' him back legally untill he's older, when he will still have a 'bad' personality.
I can see how the age limit doesn't work, but i hate to see a kid like that having the full plethora of things that might just make him worse.
I mean, rationally i understand what you mean and i agree, but emotionally i have trouble with this image in my head of those moronic kids who are really too dangerous for others.
Ok- i am a newbie here but and old fart elswhere...
the word i am having a hard time with is "legal"...
most of the issues you all are discussing have nothing at all to do with legalities.
People (kids, teens, sub-adults) are going to do what the hell they want to do without the "legal" subtopic.
I believe it all boils down to "responsibility".
Is a 16 year old "responsible"? (some yes- some no) hell is a 40 year old "responsible" again, some yes, some no. But in the eyes of the LAW...the 40 years old IS.
I will continue this if i seem to be making any sense to y'all.
dave
hey FD! glad you came by!
i see what you are saying... but cya's first
post was referring to whether or not the legal
age should be decreased.
then... it just went on tangent [img]eek.gif[/img]
[img]tongue.gif[/img]
whats new ive been here two? three? days and ive already noted the pattern tangents are very prevelant
heh heh... we are a simple bunch.
well.... everyone but me....
ok... and maaaaaaaaybe cya.... [img]redface.gif[/img]
i understand and thanks for the welcome...
one can not discuss (with any type of validity) "decreasing" anything until it is established that the original issue is a solid foundation of facts which form a genuine reason for change.
i know that sounds like bullshit to some- but in this world of rules it is the basis of all laws.
what is it you folks want to decrease the age limit on?
i am anything but SIMPLE