I’ve had some people tell me that the students are too young to know what they are talking about. What are your views on this claim?
Since this is a highly controversial subject, let’s move this to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think they may be too young and too emotionally traumatized by what happened to be able to properly weigh whether the populace as a whole is safer with gun ownership as it is or with it as the proponents of gun control desire it to be. I think they’re also too young to recognize and take into account the slippery slope that undoubtedly exists once gun control should get underway in earnest, and/or to judge whether the result of that slippery slope once it takes effect is ultimately beneficial or harmful.
I also think they’re too young, too unsophisticated and too underfunded to be organizing nationwide rallies.
What does too young to speak mean? How does that work?
They are invalid? Their experiences are invalid? Isn’t the idea to shut them down, as the president tried to do by diverting the debate to armed teachers?
The people saying they’re too young simply don’t like what they’re saying. There is no other reason. It’s purely an ad hominem argument.
It’s bullshit, the reality of their lives and the issues that they face are no less real because they’re young. If these students were advocating something that the people making this claim agreed with, as RickJay says, they would be championing the kids instead of dismissing them.
I don’t think it’s going to coalesce into any kind of real political force, though; I don’t think this “moment” is going to last long enough for gun control proponents to get much political capital out of it. A handful of telegenic spokespeople doesn’t translate to a movement. Call me pessimistic, I’m pretty sure I’ll be proven right.
Some of these kids are old enough to vote in November, so the claim that they’re too young to have political opinions is downright laughable and nothing more than excuse to try and avoid discussing the issue.
It’s a distraction. The NRA supporters will say anything they can to distract the public right now. Mental health. Young kids too stupid. Fatherless families. They must be praying for a volcanic eruption or some other disaster to take center stage.
Well, I don’t know. The overwhelming consensus about the country is that most of them by far are too young and immature even to decide to have sex with, with those under 18 commonly referred to as ‘children’ whenever the subject comes up. Thus I think it’s possible that many of the people who voice the belief that these students are too young have themselves been swayed by this line of thinking, and therefore, believing the kids are indeed too young/immature to think for themselves, they suspect that these kids are being manipulated by outsiders with an anti-gun agenda.
Those that are saying that we don’t want to hear what the students have to say are wrong. The point that’s being made is that it provably isn’t wise to base government policy on opinions by young teenagers who are still freshly traumatized by a tragic event.
The fact is s teenagers lack experience and wisdom and I sure don’t want them dictating policy on this issue or any other. That certainly doesn’t mean that their views cannot be taken into consideration. But the anti- gun side is trying to strongarm policy makers with raw emotion. Long term decisions about anything should never be made with raw emotion.
Maybe they are smart enough to understand that the slippery slope is the first step in a very long campaign. How long has it been since the US of A has gone down the slippery slope?
I’m thinking young people are smart enough to say BS to the propaganda that banning military-grade weapons will lead to mass confiscations and every gun owner in the US being shipped off to camps like the Japanese internment post Pearl Harbor.
Agreed. If people want to listen to their stories, that’s fine. If we ultimately decide to go a different way with our public policy, that’s ok too.
Well, they’re young and traumatized, so they get to say what they want. They’ve endured an awful event and this is partly a public therapy session.
On the other hand, I’m not giving them the keys to the car, either metaphorically or in actual practice. It’s easy to understand the horror of the experience, but they are still adolescents when all is said and done. While some adolescents are bright and have significant potential, they are too naive and unseasoned to be the last word on any subject.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, they’re not too young. How do I know this? Let’s see…25 years teaching high school English and history, haring and reading the texts of well over a thousand student-written, student-delivered speeches …judged speech meets most of that time…critiqued most valedictorian/salutatorian speeches. Some kids are crummy speech writers. Most are pretty good with some effort and feedback, and some are terrific, again with effort and feedback.
One of the factors that makes for a good speech is passion about the subject. Those kids felt pretty passionate about their subject matter.
I have no doubt the kids who spoke had others–fellow students, parents, maybe even speech team coaches–make suggestions and give feedback. So what? That’s not writing the speeches for them.
This whole ridiculous concept ticks me off. It’s a way of trying to delegitimize what these high schoolers have said. It’s a way to delegitimize the young people themselves. And it’s a pretty rotten trick. I suspect a lot of those who are suspicious aren’t very well-written or well-spoken and hate thinking a high-schooler could show them up.
So let me get this straight - Old enough to get shot but too young to speak. Is that it?
I haven’t seen anyone in this thread say they’re too young to speak.
Did you read the title of this thread?
The OP said “I’ve had some people tell me …”. He seems to clearly be skeptical of the claim, he’s definitely not the one telling them they’re “too young to speak”.
Yes, that’s what the OP said, that’s how I interpreted it also. Did you have some point in mind?
Somehow I don’t remember the First Amendment mentioning anything about age…