Hokkmike
Member
Parenting is a key variable. But - when a young man or women is old enough to be eligible to carry a weapon in my defense, ie., the armed forces or police, then by all means they should be allowed to buy their own weapons.
At what age do you believe people should be able to own guns?
- Thread starter john fisher
- Start date
- Status
Parenting is a key variable. But - when a young man or women is old enough to be eligible to carry a weapon in my defense, ie., the armed forces or police, then by all means they should be allowed to buy their own weapons.
lightman
Member
It would be real hard to pick an age that works for everyone. Some people mature faster than others. Some never do. Pressed to pick an age I would say 18. I don't remember the exact age when I had control of a gun the first time. It was probably 10 or 11. My Grandfather gave me my first gun the day that I was born and bought me a few others over the time of my childhood. I had a gun cabinet in my bed room with my own guns before I was old enough to join the Boy Scouts. I mean they were in my possession, not that I was allowed to shoot them unsupervised. I was pretty much raised around them. And like a few others, I purchased guns with lawn mowing money at a young age.
EIB0879
Member
I had firearms from age 12 forward. I bought my first at age 15, through my stepfather, that I guess would now be considered a straw purchase. I bought three before the age of 18. Back then the stores didn't care. I enlisted when I was 17 (with parental consent), so I feel that is the age which a person should be able to purchase any firearm.
lysanderxiii
Member
The same age as you can vote and buy beer....
If you are to immature to be trusted with a six-pack of beer or a gun, you are to immature to vote.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
The determinant factor for owning/buying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc.) should be the combination maturity and the ability to consistently employ common sense, regardless of age.
If we are looking at some sort of a legislative specification for the ability to own/buy a firearm, then it should be 18 years old as that allows anyone who violates the law to be prosecuted as an adult and, hopefully, to the fullest extent of the law.
If we are looking at some sort of a legislative specification for the ability to own/buy a firearm, then it should be 18 years old as that allows anyone who violates the law to be prosecuted as an adult and, hopefully, to the fullest extent of the law.
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
I agree completely. Unfortunately, that quality seems to be eroding faster than ever.
Wish that it wasn't the case, but it is....
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
IMHO........18 to purchase and whatever age your state dictates as a minimum age to hunt alone, to "own" a firearm.
Iffin' you believe most preadolescent children are capable of the proper mentality to buy and own firearms without any adult supervision, then you must believe they have the same when it comes to deciding if or not to have sex and who they can have sex with legally. I have a real hard time believing any adult with normal intelligence, would believe 2nd to 4th grade children have that capability.
Iffin' you believe most preadolescent children are capable of the proper mentality to buy and own firearms without any adult supervision, then you must believe they have the same when it comes to deciding if or not to have sex and who they can have sex with legally. I have a real hard time believing any adult with normal intelligence, would believe 2nd to 4th grade children have that capability.
OH, was the Thread Title: "At What Age Do You Believe People Should Be Able To BUY Guns, With No Training Or Supervision" ?
I was given firearms safety training, almost as soon as I could walk and talk, long before I owned my first BB gun.
But thanks, for putting words in my mouth.
I was given firearms safety training, almost as soon as I could walk and talk, long before I owned my first BB gun.
But thanks, for putting words in my mouth.
Same age as you are entitled to the other protections of the Bill Of Rights. It's funny, people think that making it illegal for minors to own weapons (or drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc) is going to prevent them from obtaining weapons (or drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc). Just allow everyone to own a gun, and only punish the misuse of it instead of mere possession. If a minor murders someone, try him/her as an adult whether they use a gun or gasoline or a pillow. Pretty simple.
6.8KT
member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 157
I think I was around 9 when I got a .22LR. But, that mostly had to stay on the rack over the fireplace mantle, as we lived in the 'burbs.
My BB gun though, that I was more or less allowed to do whatever with.
I shot a cardinal up close once with my BB gun, around the same age as above (~9), and it died in my hand. I felt tremendous remorse. I empathized with that bird. From then on, I vowed to never kill any animal again, unless it was for food or self-defense.
Anyway, as to your point... I'd suppose 18, since at that age a person might have an apartment or whatever, and would require the means to defend it from invasion.
On the other hand, a good 50% or more of current 18-21 year-olds are not the kind of people I would trust to be armed.
So it becomes an issue of protecting the rights of a decent minority at the expense of giving an irresponsible majority a bit too much power.
My BB gun though, that I was more or less allowed to do whatever with.
I shot a cardinal up close once with my BB gun, around the same age as above (~9), and it died in my hand. I felt tremendous remorse. I empathized with that bird. From then on, I vowed to never kill any animal again, unless it was for food or self-defense.
Anyway, as to your point... I'd suppose 18, since at that age a person might have an apartment or whatever, and would require the means to defend it from invasion.
On the other hand, a good 50% or more of current 18-21 year-olds are not the kind of people I would trust to be armed.
So it becomes an issue of protecting the rights of a decent minority at the expense of giving an irresponsible majority a bit too much power.
Deltaboy1984
Member
The standard been 18 for Long Guns and 21 for Handguns to purchase!
As for using and handling I got gifted a Daisy at 5 , a Ithaca Super Single 410 at 7, and a 22 at 12 and a 870 at 16!
As for using and handling I got gifted a Daisy at 5 , a Ithaca Super Single 410 at 7, and a 22 at 12 and a 870 at 16!
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
But the Left won't allow that; it would mean taking responsibility for one's action, something they preach to certain groups they do not have to worry about........
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
That's a fairly recent standard compared to the previous history of this country
JR24
Member
For purchasing? Whenever you are considered an adult is when you should be able to purchase guns. To claim a person is responsibly able to vote yet not responsible enough to buy a gun is ludicrous.
I was given "my" first gun when I passed hunters safety ... so, 12? Bought my first rifle immediately at 18.
I was given "my" first gun when I passed hunters safety ... so, 12? Bought my first rifle immediately at 18.
6.8KT
member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 157
Yeah... but...then came:
- The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
- Multi-generational subsidized welfare breeding
- A veritable invasion by prolific breeders from Mexico and elsewhere
- Psychotropic pharmaceuticals prescribed to 1/3 of the country
- Propaganda of all kinds that deny personal responsibility and shift blame from the culpable to the innocent
- The Drug War and the resultant trillion-dollar black market
TheOmordha
Member
I shot my first .177 pellet gun when I was 8, under my father's constant supervision. This was in 1960. I attended my first hunter safety course at age 9, along with my NRA certification. That year I shot my first .22LR., .410, .20 gauge and 12 gauge. I shot my Dad's Woodsman at age 10 and his 1911. All of these were my Dad's arms. I was given the Benjamin .177 at age 9. I bought a new Remington Nylon 66, my first .22 at age 11 from the LGS where I took my hunter safety course. I saved for more than a year to get that gun. I harvested many squirrels, coyotes, crows & rabbits. I bought my first handgun, a used 4" Ruger Standard at age 12 and my first revolver a Ruger Single Six at 13. It was new and really was a wonderful handgun for a boy. I bought my first 1911 at age 18. I think your family and friends know when you are old enough to shoot and old enough to own. I took up Black Powder at 25. I shoot cannons and Flint now and for practice my various air guns.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
Sorry, wasn't my intention, since you did it well enough yourself....
........does the word "both" not mean buy and own?
I have helped teach Hunters safety classes for 4 decades. While I too believe in starting them young, there is a point where one's mind is just too undeveloped for cognitive thinking. All of my grandkids have been taught firearm safety and have been target shooting some form of firearm since they were 6 or 7. The oldest is now 13. Still would not want her to be able to walk into a gun store, without her folks or me, and buy a gun. Our state says, with a firearms safety course, she can hunt alone @ 14. In other words, her folks could be held liable if she is found to have a gun in her possession without some form of adult supervision, before that. Thus there's not a lot of reason to "own" one till then, other than to say "I have a gun". JMTCs.
I was given a car by my dad when I was 14. Since I couldn't drive it till I was 16, and I couldn't register it as mine till I was 18, it really didn't belong to me. Just sayin'........
Officers'Wife
Member
I think we all agree that allowing a toddler the use of a firearm unsupervised would be very poor parenting. Beyond that, I had seen a child of eight that I would feel comfortable with him having a small caliber rifle. By the same token I've seen a number of so-called adults that I get nervous when they pick up a butter knife. But it is the nature of the law to set hard and fast benchmarks by age. We insist our military personnel be at least eighteen. We – at least in Indiana – insist that people driving on public highways be at least 15 1/2. We insist – again in Indiana – the people cannot buy alcohol until they are twenty-one. Whether they are responsible enough after that point becomes a matter to be determined by the authorities under the rule of law.
As I've said before, I firmly believe that a society that decides that 15 1/2 is old enough to operate as deadly a weapon as an automobile should have no problem with the person that age buying and operating a firearm.
As I've said before, I firmly believe that a society that decides that 15 1/2 is old enough to operate as deadly a weapon as an automobile should have no problem with the person that age buying and operating a firearm.
Not that "own" and "buy" are even similar terms, but if that's the question,(rather than the question
actually stated in the thread title) IMO, there should be about the same regulation to buy a gun as
there is to buy a sharp knife, or a baseball bat.
If you want to do something about gun crime, create a law that takes drugs and gangs off the streets.
I see a lot of SWAT teams which want to confiscate LAGOs guns at the drop of a hat, which don't seem that interested in going after inner city gangs.
actually stated in the thread title) IMO, there should be about the same regulation to buy a gun as
there is to buy a sharp knife, or a baseball bat.
If you want to do something about gun crime, create a law that takes drugs and gangs off the streets.
I see a lot of SWAT teams which want to confiscate LAGOs guns at the drop of a hat, which don't seem that interested in going after inner city gangs.
The difference many are mentioning is urban vs rural views. Rural is the natural human situation. Humans going back thousands of years ideally had a piece of land that created enough space for them to be self reliant in growing or raising food, creating defensible space, and having a piece of the world to shape as their own.
This was the situation when the Constitution was drafted.
This situation better supports freedom as people spend a significant part of their time in a space that has far less impact on others, and so others are more inclined to support their freedom to do what they want in that space and in life in general.
Modern urbanized lifestyles are more efficient, giant mass scale farming produces more for less, and people packed into small spaces where they have little more than sleeping and cooking quarters gives the most room to grow the population (and government always wants a bigger population to support the pyramid scheme of government which does better with more people to pay for the prior generations than were in the prior generation.) The ideal of many city planners is to have few people driving and instead using mass transit, and living in living spaces that are as small as possible to fit as many people in the available space as possible. With large homes made for those with enough money only to better acquire property taxes through more expensive home values, often still designing them to use limited valuable acreage. This is reflected in what they allow developers to build and do, and developers want maximum returns too.
The giant homes that take up almost the whole lot and end ten feet from the neighbor accomplish taking the most property taxes from the resident for a given amount of used land. So there is strong motivations for how cities progress and develop and it is contrary to what was the natural situation most humans lived in for thousands of years.
City living is not normal. Walking beside random strangers and sharing close space with people you don't know regularly within arms distance is contrary to safety and human etiquette going back for most of human history. This situation causes people to want to better control those people they don't know or understand they share close space with on the street, on the subway or bus, in the hallways of their apartment building, etc. Combine this with the denser communities resulting in the crimes and problems seeming more common than they even are as the high density means every problem has many more neighbors that feel close to where it happened.
Step in the local government trying to better control the population and those fears turn into far more limited rights in dense urban areas as the local government typically is able to restrict the population with more people seeing the erosion of their rights as a positive in giving a greater illusion of safety. The density also means a higher tax paying density, which gives a bigger budget to a more extensive legal and law enforcement system, and while it might not be much greater per capita, it still means a much larger force exerting control on the population.
The other huge factor is one we don't discuss trying to stay firearm oriented in a way that is most inclusive to all as if firearm rights are in their own vacuum and not primarily impacted by things that have little to do with firearm use or misuse. (Why do you think we can do so well with statistics.)
We for most of our history were more homogeneous in spite of what we are all taught of our diversity in government mandated curriculum. The more homogeneous a population the lower its crime and other problems when adjusted for income etc Anyone not being politically correct can see most of our troubles have come from trying to integrate very different cultures and communities that support very different things. When you have a whole subculture or multiple thriving subcultures that do not respect aspects of the law or the culture or morals imposed on them by other aspects of society it becomes normal to live contrary to the desires of the rest of the population, including doing illegal things routinely that are laws imposed by others outside of the subculture. This creates a general apathy towards tradition, and while there is many things that could be improved in tradition, it is tradition because it worked well for a long time and includes the wisdom earned by prior generations. When you throw it out the window you gain problems that were not even requiring resources to deal with previously.
The differences between most of the European immigrants were quite minor in spite of the big deals made about them. Most were from Western Europe. People coming from many parts of Europe came from similar backgrounds, shared similar values, morals, views, religion etc And people stood strong for their views. Today we have trained the generations since the civil rights era to be more and more accepting of everything contrary or different and to even celebrate abnormal as a positive. Well that sounds nice, but the result is a society where everyone is on a different page, and creating their own separate sphere. Well the sphere of some is very different than others, and it impacts our ability to rely on our neighbors or share the same issues.
The reduced time families spend together, longer work hours on average, longer commutes for those not choosing to live in the dense cities where most jobs tend to be located, both parents working as a result of two incomes of mid and low level being required most places, and digital entertainment also promoting the separate spheres as everyone can spend their own separate time watching their own separate things further promoting only the views of the sphere they live in. Most teens would rather be with their friends than family and that has not changed, but when with family they used to actually be with family. Today they are with who they want to be on their phone and most people are less invested in the moment. Employers also rarely used to bother an employee off the clock, and if they wanted to communicate something left a message on the answering machine that would be viewed once or twice a day. So personal time was personal time and work time was work time, yet respect for that has eroded now that everyone carries personal phones.
All of these things are eroding our nation, while we at the same time import massive amounts of immigrants, pretending the various people from anywhere in the world are the same and bringing them in fast tracked to citizenship if they benefit an employer with valuable skills, not to mention the unsecured border made worse by policies in places like California that give more benefits to descendants of illegals than even their own citizens.
We need a stable solid population that shares a culture for more people to view things similarly and to have similar problems that can be best addressed rather than very unique and different problems as a result of being so different.
Too much diversity always leads to Balkanization and makes subcultures that work against the mainstream culture. That leads to more bureaucratic control in an attempt to keeps things working, and increased control usually includes decreasing the power wielded by the average citizen which doesn't go well for firearm rights.
This was the situation when the Constitution was drafted.
This situation better supports freedom as people spend a significant part of their time in a space that has far less impact on others, and so others are more inclined to support their freedom to do what they want in that space and in life in general.
Modern urbanized lifestyles are more efficient, giant mass scale farming produces more for less, and people packed into small spaces where they have little more than sleeping and cooking quarters gives the most room to grow the population (and government always wants a bigger population to support the pyramid scheme of government which does better with more people to pay for the prior generations than were in the prior generation.) The ideal of many city planners is to have few people driving and instead using mass transit, and living in living spaces that are as small as possible to fit as many people in the available space as possible. With large homes made for those with enough money only to better acquire property taxes through more expensive home values, often still designing them to use limited valuable acreage. This is reflected in what they allow developers to build and do, and developers want maximum returns too.
The giant homes that take up almost the whole lot and end ten feet from the neighbor accomplish taking the most property taxes from the resident for a given amount of used land. So there is strong motivations for how cities progress and develop and it is contrary to what was the natural situation most humans lived in for thousands of years.
City living is not normal. Walking beside random strangers and sharing close space with people you don't know regularly within arms distance is contrary to safety and human etiquette going back for most of human history. This situation causes people to want to better control those people they don't know or understand they share close space with on the street, on the subway or bus, in the hallways of their apartment building, etc. Combine this with the denser communities resulting in the crimes and problems seeming more common than they even are as the high density means every problem has many more neighbors that feel close to where it happened.
Step in the local government trying to better control the population and those fears turn into far more limited rights in dense urban areas as the local government typically is able to restrict the population with more people seeing the erosion of their rights as a positive in giving a greater illusion of safety. The density also means a higher tax paying density, which gives a bigger budget to a more extensive legal and law enforcement system, and while it might not be much greater per capita, it still means a much larger force exerting control on the population.
The other huge factor is one we don't discuss trying to stay firearm oriented in a way that is most inclusive to all as if firearm rights are in their own vacuum and not primarily impacted by things that have little to do with firearm use or misuse. (Why do you think we can do so well with statistics.)
We for most of our history were more homogeneous in spite of what we are all taught of our diversity in government mandated curriculum. The more homogeneous a population the lower its crime and other problems when adjusted for income etc Anyone not being politically correct can see most of our troubles have come from trying to integrate very different cultures and communities that support very different things. When you have a whole subculture or multiple thriving subcultures that do not respect aspects of the law or the culture or morals imposed on them by other aspects of society it becomes normal to live contrary to the desires of the rest of the population, including doing illegal things routinely that are laws imposed by others outside of the subculture. This creates a general apathy towards tradition, and while there is many things that could be improved in tradition, it is tradition because it worked well for a long time and includes the wisdom earned by prior generations. When you throw it out the window you gain problems that were not even requiring resources to deal with previously.
The differences between most of the European immigrants were quite minor in spite of the big deals made about them. Most were from Western Europe. People coming from many parts of Europe came from similar backgrounds, shared similar values, morals, views, religion etc And people stood strong for their views. Today we have trained the generations since the civil rights era to be more and more accepting of everything contrary or different and to even celebrate abnormal as a positive. Well that sounds nice, but the result is a society where everyone is on a different page, and creating their own separate sphere. Well the sphere of some is very different than others, and it impacts our ability to rely on our neighbors or share the same issues.
The reduced time families spend together, longer work hours on average, longer commutes for those not choosing to live in the dense cities where most jobs tend to be located, both parents working as a result of two incomes of mid and low level being required most places, and digital entertainment also promoting the separate spheres as everyone can spend their own separate time watching their own separate things further promoting only the views of the sphere they live in. Most teens would rather be with their friends than family and that has not changed, but when with family they used to actually be with family. Today they are with who they want to be on their phone and most people are less invested in the moment. Employers also rarely used to bother an employee off the clock, and if they wanted to communicate something left a message on the answering machine that would be viewed once or twice a day. So personal time was personal time and work time was work time, yet respect for that has eroded now that everyone carries personal phones.
All of these things are eroding our nation, while we at the same time import massive amounts of immigrants, pretending the various people from anywhere in the world are the same and bringing them in fast tracked to citizenship if they benefit an employer with valuable skills, not to mention the unsecured border made worse by policies in places like California that give more benefits to descendants of illegals than even their own citizens.
We need a stable solid population that shares a culture for more people to view things similarly and to have similar problems that can be best addressed rather than very unique and different problems as a result of being so different.
Too much diversity always leads to Balkanization and makes subcultures that work against the mainstream culture. That leads to more bureaucratic control in an attempt to keeps things working, and increased control usually includes decreasing the power wielded by the average citizen which doesn't go well for firearm rights.
Last edited:
gbw
Member
21 / 21
george burns
Member
It really should be based on the maturity of the person getting the gun. I think honestly that 18-21 is the age where if you had to pick an age, that should be based on the individual at an interview. Perhaps 18 year old guys and gals are maturing faster, but if it's under 21 there should be some sort of competence level or interview required. But I am old fashioned in that regard, some people should not have guns like they should not drive, but you can't exclude them in a Democracy. I am pro gun but I don't want stupid people to have deadly weapons, because they may make poor decisions, and in this case possibly get someone killed.
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
LOL. Same here.
- Status
