What minimum age to carry a gun

imported post

We have already determined that 2Ashould not require any type of training or knowledge for carrying a firearm nor does it limit the type, handgun/longgun so that restriction is not an option.

At what age should a person be allowed to carry a gun with them in public either openly or concealed? If they are permitted by law to carry a gun on the streets then should their parents be required to keep their guns locked up away from their kids?

I am just interested in seeing how you feel about teenagers carrying guns especially in states where it is permitted.

imported post

My vote was None, I believe it's none of the government;s business to determine age... it's up to the parent.



I would have let my kids be armed 18 for my son 12 for my daughters. Even at school....:shock: if not for the meddling busybody nanny government.

imported post

Well, we used to strap on BB guns and go riding bikes to the woods to shoot at age 10 or so. I doubt you could do that now without someone's parents getting charged with something criminal. As for "real" guns... I think there shouldn't necessarily be criminal laws about it, but say, maybe civil liability on the parents if a minor does do something stupid or careless with a gun. That would encourage parents to see that the kids are adequately supervised or trained, at whatever age they deem appropriate. I know I was a hellion when I was young, and I do know of people who got shot with real guns by careless untrained kids playing with them. Just a thought.

-ljp

imported post

I think there's a good reason for 18 being the right age. Children under 18 haven't fully developed, and may be more apt to make poor decisions based solely on emotion.

That and you are legally responsible for your own actions at 18. If you aren't legally responsible for your actions, I would think it wouldn't be right to carry a firearm.

Bear in mind that I am only talking about CC/OC of a pistol in public. On your own land, or while outdoors, I don't see any reason that anyone but the parent should decide when a child is old enough to carry and use a gun. I do, however, disagree with allowing children under 18 to carry guns at school. I think teachers and anyone over 18 should be allowed to be armed, but I don't think it's ok to let your 10 year old pack his glock to class. 10 year olds tend to over-react and get in fights. They tend to bully or (even worse in a gun situation) be bullied. They may not have a fully adult grasp on what the appropriate response to bullying is. Shooting isn't it. Threatening to shoot isn't either. Most people under 18 aren't fully aware of the laws either, and couldn't be held responsible if they broke any gun laws. Not that I support any gun laws per say, but I do support the enforcement oflaw in general.

That being said, I think that it is the parent's decision when a child gets to own a gun or use a gun, but as for carrying a gun, that effects society, so I don't know about parents making that call. Maybe 16-17 would be a good thing to test and see if it works, but I would absolutely support 18 yo carry.

imported post

Freeflight wrote:

My vote was None, I believe it's none of the government;s business to determine age... it's up to the parent.



I would have let my kids be armed 18 for my son 12 for my daughters. Even at school....:shock: if not for the meddling busybody nanny government.

Click to expand...

Folks as I said this, I know it's a pipe dream. I would trust MY Kids with being armed.I wouldn't trust any one Else's kidsand I know that no-one but me would trust my kids.. so that being said.

I know that I am over-sensitive to government telling me what to do and how to do it... I know that about myself... so from time to time you get me saying things like this in rebellion to being nannied to death by the government.

Realistically and legally however I think18 is a good age, old enough to vote, old enough to Carryalone without me.

Younger than 18 it should be Whenever and whereverI say they can carryif they are with me... Not the government.

imported post

The more words written qualifying an opinion the less meaningful it becomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Although the logic of naïve falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. In order to logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'. For example suppose that some existential statement V (such as those expressed in media) implies observation O, rather than having observation O supported on its own merits:

Click to expand...

Some here are confused.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Freeflight wrote:

...Younger than 18 it should be Whenever and whereverI say they can carryif they are with me...

Click to expand...

I can agree with that, I suppose.

imported post

My kids have always carried a gun when out in the wilds every since they were old enough for me to take them to the range and teach them gun safety.

Now federal law on the other hand states you must be 21 to buy a handgun from a FFL or 18 for a long gun. You can still gift them one as a parent or Uncle.

imported post

If I was being attacked by a BG and my little grandson could pick up my gun and stop that threat....Then great.



For juveniles it should be on a person by person basis as determined by their parents.



Tarzan

imported post

Well, I think if someone is old enough to drive a car, they ought to be considered old enough to carry a gun. Both can be used as lethal weapons, and I'd say injurious incidents resulting from immature judgementsin actionsare much more likely to result from the use of automobiles than firearms.

For juveniles it should be on a person by person basis as determined by their parents.

Click to expand...

I agree. And as far as how old I think someone should be to drive, I think that should also be up to the parents.

People don't magicallygain good judgementat a specific age. Some people at age 15 exhibit better judgement than those at age 25.

I think 21 is rediculous.If someone is able to vote they ought to be a full citizen with full rights. If you canjoin the military all on your own (where you will be using guns), you betterbe able to own your own guns.

Besides, the constitution says one of the benefits of the right to bear arms is well regulated militias. If people become part of the militia when they are 17 by law, wouldn't it help the militia be well regulated if they too can be well armed? By this status, maybe 17 should be the age people gain full rights.

imported post

If you can trust them not to run over a school yard full of kids or firebomb somebody's house, then why can't you trust them to defend themselves? Also, I remember reading that girls aged 16-something I can't remember, I think it was 19/20 are at the highest risk of a stranger kidnapping, so it doesn't make sense not the let them be able to defend themselves.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Well, I think if someone is old enough to drive a car, they ought to be considered old enough to carry a gun. Both can be used as lethal weapons, and I'd say injurious incidents resulting from immature judgementsin actionsare much more likely to result from the use of automobiles than firearms.

Click to expand...

Ok, no offense, but that's the second most retarded thing I've ever heard.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Well, I think if someone is old enough to drive a car, they ought to be considered old enough to carry a gun. Both can be used as lethal weapons, and I'd say injurious incidents resulting from immature judgementsin actionsare much more likely to result from the use of automobiles than firearms.

Click to expand...

Ok, no offense, but that's the second most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Click to expand...

Every time you step into your car you have to consider risks such as whether or not you will have time to cross a lane or how fast to drive around an icy corner. Many people drive cars to work and back every day. They are facing the constant threat of an injurious incident should their judgement lapse. I know people personally who have been in accidents they could have avoided if they had shown better judgement.Say a person carries and owns a gun and also owns and drives a car on a regular basis. What kind of accident do you think is more likely?

Don't mistake me, of course firearms are very serious objects and must be handled by an individual with utmost care.Cars require care and responsibility too.Unfortunately there are a lot of irresponsible drivers. No law can stop idiots though.

imported post

Duplicate post.

imported post

Are you asking me as a parent?

It depends on the maturity of the child. My oldest was very responsible and understood the issues. We started withBB guns (including aCrossman BB handgun)when he was seven. By nine his accuracy and range discipline were well above that of most adults at the range.

I was in the military, and when I deployed it was comforting to know that my teenage son at age 13 could, if necessary, protect my family with a shotgun or a handgun. My wife was legally and almost completely blind and could not reliably use firearms.

I have another son who is 17. He is not responsible handling guns and his maturity and judgementare not at an acceptable level for handling firearms. I don't bring him to the range any more. I haven't allowed him to get a learners permit either.

So I think, as a parent that takes gun safety seriously, thatparents should determine when a child is ready to carry firearms.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Are you asking me as a parent?

It depends on the maturity of the child. My oldest was very responsible and understood the issues. We started withBB guns (including aCrossman BB handgun)when he was seven. By nine his accuracy and range discipline were well above that of most adults at the range.

I was in the military, and when I deployed it was comforting to know that my teenage son at age 13 could, if necessary, protect my family with a shotgun or a handgun. My wife was legally and almost completely blind and could not reliably use firearms.

I have another son who is 17. He is not responsible handling guns and his maturity and judgementare not at an acceptable level for handling firearms. I don't bring him to the range any more. I haven't allowed him to get a learners permit either.

So I think, as a parent that takes gun safety seriously, thatparents should determine when a child is ready to carry firearms.

Click to expand...

I should have made this clear at first but I am asking at what age would you feel comfortable with allowing you neighbor's child walk down the street with a gun. Not your own children, but seeing the kids from the project walk into the 7-11 with a Glock strapped on their hip and hat turned sideways as long as they have never been convicted of some crime before. I am saying what should the law be.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

Are you asking me as a parent?

It depends on the maturity of the child. My oldest was very responsible and understood the issues. We started withBB guns (including aCrossman BB handgun)when he was seven. By nine his accuracy and range discipline were well above that of most adults at the range.

I was in the military, and when I deployed it was comforting to know that my teenage son at age 13 could, if necessary, protect my family with a shotgun or a handgun. My wife was legally and almost completely blind and could not reliably use firearms.

I have another son who is 17. He is not responsible handling guns and his maturity and judgementare not at an acceptable level for handling firearms. I don't bring him to the range any more. I haven't allowed him to get a learners permit either.

So I think, as a parent that takes gun safety seriously, thatparents should determine when a child is ready to carry firearms.

Click to expand...

I should have made this clear at first but I am asking at what age would you feel comfortable with allowing you neighbor's child walk down the street with a gun. Not your own children, but seeing the kids from the project walk into the 7-11 with a Glock strapped on their hip and hat turned sideways as long as they have never been convicted of some crime before. I am saying what should the law be.

Click to expand...

Are you asking about a Federal or a state law?

imported post

Thundar wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

Are you asking me as a parent?

It depends on the maturity of the child. My oldest was very responsible and understood the issues. We started withBB guns (including aCrossman BB handgun)when he was seven. By nine his accuracy and range discipline were well above that of most adults at the range.

I was in the military, and when I deployed it was comforting to know that my teenage son at age 13 could, if necessary, protect my family with a shotgun or a handgun. My wife was legally and almost completely blind and could not reliably use firearms.

I have another son who is 17. He is not responsible handling guns and his maturity and judgementare not at an acceptable level for handling firearms. I don't bring him to the range any more. I haven't allowed him to get a learners permit either.

So I think, as a parent that takes gun safety seriously, thatparents should determine when a child is ready to carry firearms.

Click to expand...

I should have made this clear at first but I am asking at what age would you feel comfortable with allowing you neighbor's child walk down the street with a gun. Not your own children, but seeing the kids from the project walk into the 7-11 with a Glock strapped on their hip and hat turned sideways as long as they have never been convicted of some crime before. I am saying what should the law be.

Click to expand...

Are you asking about a Federal or a state law?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. There are no Federal laws so that really isn'tan issue. In some states it is 21, others much lower and some not at all. Do you think there should be a law at all or are you comfortable with allowing 12 year olds carry a gun for defense at the mall. Right the highest number seems to want to deny anyone und 18 the right to carry a gun.

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Every time you step into your car you have to consider risks such as whether or not you will have time to cross a lane or how fast to drive around an icy corner. Many people drive cars to work and back every day. They are facing the constant threat of an injurious incident should their judgement lapse. I know people personally who have been in accidents they could have avoided if they had shown better judgement.Say a person carries and owns a gun and also owns and drives a car on a regular basis. What kind of accident do you think is more likely?

Don't mistake me, of course firearms are very serious objects and must be handled by an individual with utmost care.Cars require care and responsibility too.Unfortunately there are a lot of irresponsible drivers. No law can stop idiots though.

Click to expand...

There is no connection between cars and guns. The purpose of a car is not to kill people. The purpose of a gun is. I'm not trying to demonize guns, I wouldn't carry one if it wasn't an unstrument of death. Now you are trying to compare teenagers driving cars to teenagers carrying guns, as if there is some kind of connection just because both can cause death. This is one of the stupidest, most naivethings I've ever heard.

All of this "it should be up to the parents when a kid gets to carry a gun" is really starting to turn me off of this forum. I like the fact that you guys are deffending your constitutional rights, and I am all for liberty. That's why I'm hear. But some of you are just f*ing whackjobs. You use the constitution and liberty to justify your ignorance and naivity to the reality of the fact that we are human beings. I really don't like being associated with a group of nutcases, and some of you are really painting the rest of us in this group with a bad brush.

I agree with open carry as a principle and I support the 2nd amendment, but tellng me that 16 year olds can be trusted to carry guns, just because they can be trusted driving cars, is just retarded. Maybe you don't remember being 16. Because when I was 16 I was yelling at my parents, freaking out about some girl that doesn't like me, and using incredibly bad judgement. Just like everyone else. Denying that 16 year olds are hopped up on hormones and jam packed full of bad ideas and irresponsible choices, is ust plain ignorant of reality.

And tell me that some 12 year old isn't going to point a gun at the bully in class instead of getting stuffed in a trash can. I know when I was 12 I would have. It's not because I was a bad person, or because my moral compass was out of whack. It's because I was 12! I didn't completely understand the consequences of my actions. Neither did you, so don't try to act like you did. I wasn't even that bright when I was 18 and I made some stupid choices. I bet if you really think about it, you probably did to.

I love freedom, and I support the 2nd amendment, but letting kids carry guns in public is the absolute stupidest thing I've ever heard. Some of you really need to see a shrink.

imported post

You may be right that it takes two different types of responsibilities for both cars and guns. I suppose one may possess one and not the other and vice versa. In any case, they both require substantial responsibility and could have lethal consequences for misjudgements. The attainment of bothtypes ofresponsibility should be determined by the parents in my opinion.

Maybe when you were 16 you were a rebellious youth with no sense, but I'm 18 andI remember being 16 very well. I wasreally nodifferent then than I am now.I don't remember being 12 much but I was much different when I was 12 and I cannot say whether or not I could have handled it then.

I suppose a legitimate question could be whether I have any sense even now, but regardless, the law says I do because magically all 18 year olds do.

The only thing that made me a kid when I was 16 and an adult now is abstract law. In states where you have to be 21, I would still be treated like a kid in that respect, and your right as heck I'd want to still have my rights. So yes, if 16-21 year olds are kids, I support the rights of kids to have and carry guns.

I've vary rarely been in arguments with my parents over the last four years, who I still live with. I'vebeen takingclasses for college credit in HighSchool for the lastfour years too.Differnet people are different. That's why parents should be able to decide and not the government.

The only argument Iseeagainst them deciding is if the parents are not wise enough to make good judgements.I'd really rather the government just stay of our lives as much as possible.A mother and father are a better judge of their childs judgement than a blanket statement by the government. If a parent does not think their twelve year old should have guns, they shouldn't let them have guns. Ultimately, parents are held responsible for their childrens actions.Thus I doubt many 12 year olds would be armed. Bad parenting does exist, and unfortunately is on the rise, but I'd still rather leave it to the parents. In the 1800's and early 1900's, it may not have even been so big of a deal [like the old pictures of kids with their pump-action .22s?], but not having lived during either period of time I cannot confirm this. I think the reason is that parenting was better back then, and parents forced their children to understand the implications of their actions at a much earlier age.

In Nevada, minors aged 14 and up can "possess/own" a rifle at their house with permissionfrom their parents. It must be in theresidence unloaded (but a loaded magazine could be kept near by as long as it is not insertedexcept in the need for "immediatedefense" which is mentioned in law)and cannot leave theresidence with the minorunless accompanied by a parent. I've had a rifle under these legal conditions since about the time I was 14. I have not done anything with it I would consider stupid, but I also have not been thrown in trashcans. This isn't the same as carrying it in public but still requires responsibility.

I wasn't even that bright when I was 18 and I made some stupid choices. I bet if you really think about it, you probably did to.

Click to expand...

You are right that I have done dumb things, and I anticipate that I will make dumb decisions for the rest of my life. I do feel that I am just as trustable with arms as anyone else though.