What minimum age to carry a gun

[irfner]

imported post

It would seem to me it is not a question of should we draw the line but where. If fourteen is ok how about ten or eight or perhaps a four year old. As you go down the ladder in age the line needs to be drawn somewhere. The reason; because many parents are blinded by their pride in their own children. You know "the kid is only six but has the maturity of a twelve year old". Lets give him a loaded six gun and send him out to the playground. Or how about some parents are just plain stupid.

If sixteen year olds were as mature as we sometimes like to think they are they would not have such a high automobile accident rate. I remember being sixteen and the stuff we used to do. Sorry to say sixteen is just not old enough to be running around an urban environment unsupervised with a loaded gun. Kids this age are on an emotional roller coaster which they haven't sorted out yet. They have love, jealousy, peer pressure, schooland they are just learning the responsibilities of driving. How much more pressure do you want to heap on them?

What age is appropriate then? Personally I thinktwenty ortwenty one but young people are eligible for military service at eighteen. They are eligible to vote at eighteen. So it seems our government has decided that teenagers reach a level of maturity at eighteen. While I personally feel that may still be to young I would not tell anyone who is eligible to fightand die in our wars abroad that they cannot carry a weapon at home. So eighteen seems a reasonable compromise.

Persons under the age of eighteen should not be forbidden from carrying a loaded gun. They should just be supervised. Preferably by a parent or guardian who can legally carry themselves. Consider it like a learning permit only no permit required just supervision until the age of eighteen. So if you and your son or daughter want to go OCing together have at it. It will give you a chance to teach them responsible gun ownership. There were a couple of exceptions to the age limit I suggested in my previous post on this subject. I think they are still valid.

 

[GunCat]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

I'm voting 20 years old. And that is not arbitrary. Some recent neurology and psychology studies have found quite a bit of difference between late teens and about 20 in the development of certain regions of the brain used for reasoning and impulse control. It appears that biologically, regardless of socialization, these differences mean that the average 18 year old is much more volatile than the average 20 year old and is significantly less capable of overcoming impluses with sound reasoning. Besides that, by age 20 everyone is out of normal high school classes and people are moving into adult roles for the most part by that point. AND it give them a year of carrying, prior to the legal drinking age, to think about the seriousness of their decision to carry a weapon.

So basically,one shouldhave no right to bear arms, evenif one is old enough to vote and live onhis own,and could join the military andcarry machine guns?

BTW, the age is arbitrary, males continue to mature until the age of 25. If you said 26....

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/7623.html

Almost 1/3 have voted that there should be no age requirement at all and yet the above link is about mom who has been charged because her 4 year old took her gun to school. Why should the mom be charged with anything if it is legal for her child to walk down the street with the gun strapped to his side?

That is a valid point.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

I have no objections to alimitation on the possession of arms by kids while at elementary school.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

GunCat wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

I'm voting 20 years old. And that is not arbitrary. Some recent neurology and psychology studies have found quite a bit of difference between late teens and about 20 in the development of certain regions of the brain used for reasoning and impulse control. It appears that biologically, regardless of socialization, these differences mean that the average 18 year old is much more volatile than the average 20 year old and is significantly less capable of overcoming impluses with sound reasoning. Besides that, by age 20 everyone is out of normal high school classes and people are moving into adult roles for the most part by that point. AND it give them a year of carrying, prior to the legal drinking age, to think about the seriousness of their decision to carry a weapon.

So basically, I should have no right to bear arms, even though I am old enough to vote and live on my own,and if I wanted I could join the military where I could not only carry guns but machine guns?

BTW, the age is arbitrary, males continue to mature until the age of 25. If you said 26....

The question posed asked what age would we individually choose as public policy at which people can carry weapons in public. My answer is not arbitrary as I explained. I thought quite a bit about my answer thinking about the minimum age at which society would most likely be best protected from youthful irrationality and best served by it's armed citizenry. While people continue to mature throughout life, at some point you have to set the limit, and IMO, which is all each of us can offer, 20 is a good balance of age/maturity/rationality for the general population. While people can join the military at 18, they are not given firearms and set loose in the general population without intensive training and continuous supervision. I would also be good with raising the voting age to 20 as well, so I am consistent with that, but that wasn't part of the question.

But you do bring up a good point and I would amend my answer regarding the age limit of 20 years for public carrying of firearms to also allow those of at least 18 years of age who have completed basic training in any branch of the military and are currently serving or who have been separated honorably or medically for a non-psychological reason.

 

[savery]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

But you do bring up a good point and I would amend my answer regarding the age limit of 20 years for public carrying of firearms to also allow those of at least 18 years of age who have completed basic training in any branch of the military and are currently serving or who have been separated honorably or medically for a non-psychological reason.

Wow, I smell BS.

miltary/ex military has rights... everyone else can F*ck off!

how about this. Watch/read the news... and most of the "criminals" are.....

young black males!!!!!!

Now before you call me a racist and break out the flamethrower, why do we allow blacks to carry guns? ohhhh, the horror! sure, whites commit crimes, but what about all these mug shots of black people!!!!

(if you're not picking up on satire by now, this is your hint)

sooo... basically your opinions about everyone under 18/20/21 whatever are stereotypes. you know, kind of how all gun owners are wife beating, trailer dwelling, beer guzzling redneck white trash. I think that people of all ages, races, walks of life, and religions have the right to defend themselves. Unlike some on here, I actually believe that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means just that, not a bunch of muddling over what arbitrary age should be illegally imposed on citizens of this country.

I'd say that up to a certain age, which varies, a parent is responsible for the safety of their child. That means not hiring crackhead baby sitters, keeping them healthy, not leaving a 7 year old home alone, etc. However, as they age and get jobs and a life outside of home, mom and dad can't be there with them at all times. and you konw what? just like parents shoud be responsible for seeing that their children are safe drivers and knowing when to let them drive, etc i think a parent has just as much right to say "son/daughter, I know you're working the late shift this weekend and have to drive through that sketchy neighborhood. take your pistol with you." Oh holy Sh*t the horror...

That job rests with the parents. "but there are irresponsible parents out there!!!" Sadly, yes. but it is not the job of the government to be parents. If you think it should be, move to england. I here they have plenty of social workers to go around.

While I don't have kids, If I did it would be up to me and not the government to say "here, take the keys to the car" or "why don't you take the airplane this weekend" or "take your pistol."

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

savery wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

But you do bring up a good point and I would amend my answer regarding the age limit of 20 years for public carrying of firearms to also allow those of at least 18 years of age who have completed basic training in any branch of the military and are currently serving or who have been separated honorably or medically for a non-psychological reason.

Wow, I smell BS.

miltary/ex military has rights... everyone else can F*ck off!

how about this. Watch/read the news... and most of the "criminals" are.....

young black males!!!!!!

Now before you call me a racist and break out the flamethrower, why do we allow blacks to carry guns? ohhhh, the horror! sure, whites commit crimes, but what about all these mug shots of black people!!!!

(if you're not picking up on satire by now, this is your hint)

sooo... basically your opinions about everyone under 18/20/21 whatever are stereotypes. you know, kind of how all gun owners are wife beating, trailer dwelling, beer guzzling redneck white trash. I think that people of all ages, races, walks of life, and religions have the right to defend themselves. Unlike some on here, I actually believe that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means just that, not a bunch of muddling over what arbitrary age should be illegally imposed on citizens of this country.

I'd say that up to a certain age, which varies, a parent is responsible for the safety of their child. That means not hiring crackhead baby sitters, keeping them healthy, not leaving a 7 year old home alone, etc. However, as they age and get jobs and a life outside of home, mom and dad can't be there with them at all times. and you konw what? just like parents shoud be responsible for seeing that their children are safe drivers and knowing when to let them drive, etc i think a parent has just as much right to say "son/daughter, I know you're working the late shift this weekend and have to drive through that sketchy neighborhood. take your pistol with you." Oh holy Sh*t the horror...

That job rests with the parents. "but there are irresponsible parents out there!!!" Sadly, yes. but it is not the job of the government to be parents. If you think it should be, move to england. I here they have plenty of social workers to go around.

While I don't have kids, If I did it would be up to me and not the government to say "here, take the keys to the car" or "why don't you take the airplane this weekend" or "take your pistol."

You smell BS on an OPINION? And not a knee-jerk opinion, but a thought out opinion based on enumerated factors. Not an opinion based on stereotypes as you accused but based on biological and social development research as I stated. That is no more stereotyping than saying boys typically hit puberty at about 13 and girls at about 11. There are facts about biological, neurological and social development and there are opinions as to various issues surrounding those facts and the effects of those facts on each other and on other matters, and there are always exceptions to those developmental norms. The question posed was what minimum age should be set at which to be legally allowed to carry a gun OC/CC in public. That is a reasonable question as we in modern society decide for various reasons to set minimum ages on all types of activities and the exercise of certain rights. We already have age limits as to possession, purchasing and carrying of ammunition and firearms. It is an issue that reasonable people will disagree about.

If you want to disagree with me and have an intelligent discussion as to why you disagree I'm happy to discuss it and consider your, or anyone else's, opinion and thoughts as that is the purpose of a discussion forum such as this. We share ideas, learn from each other and gain new perspective on various issues. I have obviously shown a willingness to consider and reconsider my thoughts on this as you quoted my amendment to my original thoughts on the issue. But telling me I should move to England if I disagree with your opinion on this issue is not a discussion. Sarcasm (it was not satire) is also rarely an effective discussion tool.

I never said that anyone non-military/ex-military should have no rights or that they have no rights. We are talking about the exercising of a specific right and if there should be an age limit on the open exercising of that right in the general public and exceptions to those limits. I also never said that someone younger than 20 should not be able to own, purchase, or acquire a firearm or ammunition, or that they should not be allowed to use it for hunting, sporting purposes or personal defense in their home or vehicle or that they should not be allowed to carry it while involved in those activities. I think that having a federal law restricting the right to purchase handguns to 21 and older while an 18 year old can purchase a 30-06 hunting rifle is ludicrous. Pick an age, 18 seems appropriate, at which firearms and ammunition may be purchased.

 

[expvideo]

imported post

savery wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

But you do bring up a good point and I would amend my answer regarding the age limit of 20 years for public carrying of firearms to also allow those of at least 18 years of age who have completed basic training in any branch of the military and are currently serving or who have been separated honorably or medically for a non-psychological reason.

Wow, I smell BS.

miltary/ex military has rights... everyone else can F*ck off!

how about this. Watch/read the news... and most of the "criminals" are.....

young black males!!!!!!

Now before you call me a racist and break out the flamethrower, why do we allow blacks to carry guns? ohhhh, the horror! sure, whites commit crimes, but what about all these mug shots of black people!!!!

(if you're not picking up on satire by now, this is your hint)

sooo... basically your opinions about everyone under 18/20/21 whatever are stereotypes. you know, kind of how all gun owners are wife beating, trailer dwelling, beer guzzling redneck white trash. I think that people of all ages, races, walks of life, and religions have the right to defend themselves. Unlike some on here, I actually believe that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means just that, not a bunch of muddling over what arbitrary age should be illegally imposed on citizens of this country.

I'd say that up to a certain age, which varies, a parent is responsible for the safety of their child. That means not hiring crackhead baby sitters, keeping them healthy, not leaving a 7 year old home alone, etc. However, as they age and get jobs and a life outside of home, mom and dad can't be there with them at all times. and you konw what? just like parents shoud be responsible for seeing that their children are safe drivers and knowing when to let them drive, etc i think a parent has just as much right to say "son/daughter, I know you're working the late shift this weekend and have to drive through that sketchy neighborhood. take your pistol with you." Oh holy Sh*t the horror...

That job rests with the parents. "but there are irresponsible parents out there!!!" Sadly, yes. but it is not the job of the government to be parents. If you think it should be, move to england. I here they have plenty of social workers to go around.

While I don't have kids, If I did it would be up to me and not the government to say "here, take the keys to the car" or "why don't you take the airplane this weekend" or "take your pistol."

Wait, let me get this right... So because I don't think that 13 year olds should be allowed to carry guns in public just based on parental permission... I'm a racist?

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/7623.html

Almost 1/3 have voted that there should be no age requirement at all and yet the above link is about  mom who has been charged because her 4 year old took her gun to school.  Why should the mom be charged with anything if it is legal for her child to walk down the street with the gun strapped to his side?

As I said before it should be up to the parents on juveniles.

This mother should have provided more training for her son.

Currently she is legally responsible.

Tarzan

 

[expvideo]

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/7623.html

Almost 1/3 have voted that there should be no age requirement at all and yet the above link is about mom who has been charged because her 4 year old took her gun to school. Why should the mom be charged with anything if it is legal for her child to walk down the street with the gun strapped to his side?

As I said before it should be up to the parents on juveniles.

This mother should have provided more training for her son.

Currently she is legally responsible.

Tarzan

OK seriously, what kind of a world do you live in where you think that a 4 year old is responsible and mature enough to carry a gun?

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

expvideo wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

PT111 wrote:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/7623.html

Almost 1/3 have voted that there should be no age requirement at all and yet the above link is about mom who has been charged because her 4 year old took her gun to school. Why should the mom be charged with anything if it is legal for her child to walk down the street with the gun strapped to his side?

As I said before it should be up to the parents on juveniles.

This mother should have provided more training for her son.

Currently she is legally responsible.

Tarzan

OK seriously, what kind of a world do you live in where you think that a 4 year old is responsible and mature enough to carry a gun?

I don't know this 4 year old and I don't know that he is or is not responsible and mature enough to carry a gun.

I stated that his mother should have given him training. When I was 4 I knew that I was NOT to touch a gun with out parental or adult supervision.

My older brother, at age 5, had a .22 and was fully capable of shooting, tearing down and cleaning said gun. Did he do it without adult or parental supervision. I don't know as I am 20 years younger than him and was not present.

I personally raised 5 children. None of my 5 children were responsible and mature enough at 4 or even 5 to carry a weapon unsupervised.

Are there some who are? I don't know any, but I will not exclude the possibility. I know many who have or could have carried a gun with adult supervision.

I did not carry a gun without adult supervision until I was 10. I had friends who did so younger, but I did not as I received my .22 for Christmas when I was 10.

I did carry a BB gun as an 8 year old, and many consider that a "real" gun.

Back to my point. The carrying of a gun by juveniles should be closely supervised by their parents and the parents make the determination when and where that child should carry a gun.

Tarzan

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Plus 1