Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2018, 4:05 PM
DonaldBabbett DonaldBabbett is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question Age restrictions: gun purchases

Current law notwithstanding, if you had YOUR own way, what would be the minimum lawful age to purchase:

1. a handgun?
2. a rifle?
3. a shotgun?

and why?


EXTRA

A link to lower the handgun purchase age to 18.

If you are OLD enough to vote, register for Selective Service, die in a war or die in a state's electric chair for a capital crime committed at age 18 then you are AT LEAST old enough to buy a handgun:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/suppo...licycoalition8.

Last edited by DonaldBabbett; 05-02-2018 at 4:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-02-2018, 5:41 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
Current law notwithstanding, if you had YOUR own way, what would be the minimum lawful age to purchase:

1. a handgun?
2. a rifle?
3. a shotgun?

and why?


EXTRA

A link to lower the handgun purchase age to 18.

If you are OLD enough to vote, register for Selective Service, die in a war or die in a state's electric chair for a capital crime committed at age 18 then you are AT LEAST old enough to buy a handgun:

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/suppo...licycoalition8.


An alternative. No voting, no drinking, no driving, no guns until you turn 21.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-02-2018, 6:06 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,380
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

And when do we raise the age limit to 25 or 30 or 35. unfortunately maturity does not seem to come with age but with factual knowledge on the subject and the use of it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-02-2018, 6:09 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If I had my way, there would be no minimum legal age for firearm purchases.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-02-2018, 9:47 PM
leadchucker leadchucker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

^^^^^^^^
This.
I don't recall seeing anything about age limits on rights.

Of course, there is still the issue of authority. A child would need his or her parent's permission, and the parent would have to carry the full responsibility until the child comes of age. Same goes for those under incarceration, or in the nut house. Anywhere someone is under the authority of a guardian, the guardian has a say and bears the responsibility.

But, if we HAVE to have an age, it should be 17, as that is the age one is in the unorganized militia. Oh, and that would only be for "able-bodied males"

In fact, the "militia" argument could be used to shut up the antis who think the 2A is all about the militia. 17 it is, for all firearms, not just long arms. See how quickly they backpedal.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-02-2018, 10:24 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadchucker View Post

But, if we HAVE to have an age, it should be 17, as that is the age one is in the unorganized militia. Oh, and that would only be for "able-bodied males"
Very good point.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:22 AM
DonaldBabbett DonaldBabbett is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
An alternative. No voting, no drinking, no driving, no guns until you turn 21.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then raise the draft/Selective Service age, voluntary military service age, prosecution-as-an-adult age and capital punishment age to 21 as well. It's an ALL-or-nothing proposition.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:42 AM
Azmordean Azmordean is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think constitutionally speaking, it is hard to justify an age limit over 18. That said, times have changed substantially, and the fact is, MOST (not all) 18 year olds are basically kids. Still living on their parents' dime, etc.

If I were to set aside Constitutional issues and pull a number from somewhere, I'd probably pick 21, with some kind of procedure to waive the requirement if you can show you are living on your own / self supporting / etc.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2018, 3:55 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
Then raise the draft/Selective Service age, voluntary military service age, prosecution-as-an-adult age and capital punishment age to 21 as well. It's an ALL-or-nothing proposition.


Works for me. Also raise the age limit to 21 to buy Tide Pods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-03-2018, 6:31 AM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azmordean View Post
I think constitutionally speaking, it is hard to justify an age limit over 18. That said, times have changed substantially, and the fact is, MOST (not all) 18 year olds are basically kids. Still living on their parents' dime, etc.

If I were to set aside Constitutional issues and pull a number from somewhere, I'd probably pick 21, with some kind of procedure to waive the requirement if you can show you are living on your own / self supporting / etc.
That's the same reasoning that anti gun people use to justify a lot of the laws they want to pass.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-03-2018, 6:54 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,639
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rugershooter View Post
If I had my way, there would be no minimum legal age for firearm purchases.
This.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-03-2018, 11:05 AM
DesertDave100's Avatar
DesertDave100 DesertDave100 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 287
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I bought several firearms from individuals when I was 16-17. At least 2 were handguns.

I still have some of them, and deeply regret having sold 3 or 4 of them. So if everyone was like me, I'd say there should be no issue with having driving privilege age match firearm buying age.

Using age as a surrogate for determining if an individual is responsible is not a very good means of doing it. Government tends to use the 'lowest common denominator' theory to decide on things, so if someone aged 19 does something bad, well then, they decide that no one under age 20 can be trusted.

If there is a sense of fairness in laws, then the arguments about military age matching firearm purchasing age is the least one could do.
__________________
NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member

Registration is the first step towards confiscation.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-03-2018, 11:21 AM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

the military thought that if a man or woman could fight and die for this country under the draft or as a volunteer and carry a weapon in defense of this country then they had the right to enjoy the other perks including drinking on at least the posts they were on. That age was generally eighteen but we had younger ones in the service in my time and when I left just before my 21st birthday I sure felt like the "old man". did some serious growing up and appreciating my rights.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-03-2018, 5:05 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Works for me. Also raise the age limit to 21 to buy Tide Pods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No!!!!!! You guys don't get it. All these regulations and laws limiting what we can buy and when is just like the laws requiring seatbelts and motrocyle/bicycle helmets.... its all just keeping the gene pool dirty. We need our freedom back so the stupid amongst us are culled out. Hasn't anyone here watched the movie "Idiocracy"? That's where we are heading.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-03-2018, 10:47 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,639
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
No!!!!!! You guys don't get it. All these regulations and laws limiting what we can buy and when is just like the laws requiring seatbelts and motrocyle/bicycle helmets.... its all just keeping the gene pool dirty. We need our freedom back so the stupid amongst us are culled out. Hasn't anyone here watched the movie "Idiocracy"? That's where we are heading.
Heading? Dude, we've been there for a while now.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-04-2018, 12:22 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
No!!!!!! You guys don't get it. All these regulations and laws limiting what we can buy and when is just like the laws requiring seatbelts and motrocyle/bicycle helmets.... its all just keeping the gene pool dirty. We need our freedom back so the stupid amongst us are culled out. Hasn't anyone here watched the movie "Idiocracy"? That's where we are heading.


Im all for culling the gene pool. No helmet, no seat belt, no problem. If you survive just don’t expect 100 % of your hospital stay to be covered by insurance or the right to sue for full damages (contributory negligence). Only the treatment and damages not to your head get covered. Want to OD once a week. No problem, you get one curbside dose of narcan and a microchip. Next time you OD, you have to make it to the hospital for the next dose. You can expect a compassionate society, just not a stupid one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-04-2018, 6:30 AM
DonaldBabbett DonaldBabbett is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 832
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Im all for culling the gene pool. No helmet, no seat belt, no problem. If you survive just don’t expect 100 % of your hospital stay to be covered by insurance or the right to sue for full damages (contributory negligence). Only the treatment and damages not to your head get covered. Want to OD once a week. No problem, you get one curbside dose of narcan and a microchip. Next time you OD, you have to make it to the hospital for the next dose. You can expect a compassionate society, just not a stupid one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The TAXPAYERS will foot the doctor bills if there's no insurance coverage.
It's called PUBLIC BURDEN.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-04-2018, 8:00 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
The TAXPAYERS will foot the doctor bills if there's no insurance coverage.

It's called PUBLIC BURDEN.


Under the culling of the herd theory, not many of them will survive to become a public burden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-04-2018, 8:08 AM
daveinwoodland's Avatar
daveinwoodland daveinwoodland is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,386
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Age limitations can go both ways, whose to say that they won't decide on an upper age limit as well?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-04-2018, 8:30 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,310
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

16
16
16
__________________
IF WE EVER FORGET WE ARE ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
THEN WE WILL BE A NATION GONE UNDER.
Ronald Reagan


We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-04-2018, 9:56 AM
leadchucker leadchucker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
The TAXPAYERS will foot the doctor bills if there's no insurance coverage.
It's called PUBLIC BURDEN.
No, it's called SOCIALISM. And, it's how they got their foot in the door. Now the country is fully a Socialist State with the passage of mandatory insurance under "Obamacare".
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-04-2018, 12:53 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,639
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinwoodland View Post
Age limitations can go both ways, whose to say that they won't decide on an upper age limit as well?
Its stopped shocking me how many on here are willing to put up a restriction for "somebody else", even with all the proof the people who put these restrictions in place are more than happy to add them to the "somebody else" category.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-04-2018, 2:20 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Its stopped shocking me how many on here are willing to put up a restriction for "somebody else", even with all the proof the people who put these restrictions in place are more than happy to add them to the "somebody else" category.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This, a thousand times. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-04-2018, 7:48 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,694
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

A person can vote at 18, enter into a contract at 18, must register for Selective Service at 18 and join the Armed Services at 18. So 18 pretty much does it for me. Even though, let's face it, most 18 yr olds aren't exactly bastions of reasonable thought. But such are the risks inherent with rights.

I could go lower. If the kid has been responsible and has solid parents, why wait until 18? Maybe trusting the kid with a gun imparts a bit of responsibility and good expectations. Instead of the usual "self-esteem" foolishness.

I would be open to women NOT being able to buy/possess at 18 unless and until they are also required to register for Selective Service at age 18, unless they happen to be in the service at age 18. Interesting how so many of the "equal rights" folks don't complain about that particular bit of "inequality".

Tongue in cheek on that last paragraph, mostly.

Last edited by dfletcher; 05-04-2018 at 7:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-06-2018, 5:22 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,705
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
Current law notwithstanding, if you had YOUR own way, what would be the minimum lawful age to purchase:

1. a handgun?
16.

Quote:
2. a rifle?
16.

Quote:
3. a shotgun?
16.

Quote:
and why?
Those of us who aren't gang members, involved in the illegal drug trade, or in love triangles are far more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. Drivers' pedestrian death toll alone averages over 100 a week.

In spite of that, we trust 16 year olds to drive, and should have fewer reservations about them having guns which are less dangerous than cars.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-07-2018, 7:37 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,286
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

The age of adulthood should be used to determine the minimum age for everything.

Same age for everything.

If age of adulthood is 18; then that's the minimum age to acquire any type of firearm, acquire & consume alcohol, acquire over-the-counter medications, vote, join the Military, be licensed to operate a vehicle, get married, etc.

If they want to increase the minimum age for one of the those activities, then the minimum age needs to be increased for all of them.

Your either an adult with all the rights and responsibilites of being an adult or you are not an adult (you're a minor under the care of an adult).
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 05-07-2018 at 7:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-07-2018, 9:11 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 6,569
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

18. Old enough to vote and die for this country in the military. Old enough to own a firearm.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


Discounted NRA Membership Sign Up
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-07-2018, 10:22 AM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 3,048
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Since the original question was: "...what would be the minimum lawful age to purchase:"

IMHO it should be the age of majority. Currently 18. Since that is the minimum age to take legal action on your own behalf. However, I don't believe there should be a minimum age to own a firearm. i.e.: receive as a gift or bequest.
Before the age of 18 the parents/guardians assume some responsibility.
__________________
"Everyone must determine for themselves what level of tyranny they are willing to tolerate.
I let my 03 FFL expire in 2013 and my CA residency in 2015."
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-09-2018, 10:18 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
The age of adulthood should be used to determine the minimum age for everything.

Same age for everything.

If age of adulthood is 18; then that's the minimum age to acquire any type of firearm, acquire & consume alcohol, acquire over-the-counter medications, vote, join the Military, be licensed to operate a vehicle, get married, etc.

If they want to increase the minimum age for one of the those activities, then the minimum age needs to be increased for all of them.

Your either an adult with all the rights and responsibilites of being an adult or you are not an adult (you're a minor under the care of an adult).


Since this only effects the millennials (who are the unfortunate results of this country’s 50 plus year war on common sense) why not raise the legal age of all things to age 21. (David Hogg and Nikolas Cruz are the bookend poster children for this.) With one exception, if you volunteer for the military (and continue to serve honorably) all these ages revert back to 18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-09-2018, 11:52 PM
gaberaynes's Avatar
gaberaynes gaberaynes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 833
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

25 to BUY any firearm.
But before anyone throws a fit about what I am saying hear me out.

I believe do to the times the age limit to buy should be 25, but to own should be 18 with the parents as a co signer, and responsible for kids actions with them.

I think this would serve a few purposes
1. Parents know if there kids are good or not
2. Will get the parents to start teach there kids how to be adults. And make parents to be involved in there kids lives so they know what there kids doing.
3. Will give access to the 18 year old adults the ability to be adults with some firearm responsibility.
__________________



Building a 1911 with a rock in a Cavehttp://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=957081
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-10-2018, 12:59 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 576
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is an incredibly complicated topic and I'm surprised to see people throwing numbers out with certainty and carelessness.

First we need to ask: "why do we have age limits at all?" Why can't a 5 year old boy decide he's a girl and get elective surgery to mutilate his genitals? We all agree as a society that underdeveloped brains are not capable of self-ownership due to an undeveloped sense of consequence. Therefore, we agree a parent effectively "owns" his/her child until some magical barrier is passed indicating said child now has the capacity to understand consequences and behave appropriately and responsibly. This is the same reason we don't send children to war.

Self-ownership generally coincides with the inheritance of certain rights. It's not just that "well, we send men off to die on battlefields at 18- so if they have to register for the draft to fight and die with guns on the battlefield, they get to own guns". The same logic applies to the right to vote, but who here argues because women don't have to register with the selective service, they shouldn't have the right to vote or exercise the 2nd? Few, I'd imagine. Rights hinge on self ownership because self-ownership hinges on the ability to understand consequences and conduct oneself like an adult.

So what kind of brain development is relevant? To quote neuropsychotherapist.com
Quote:
[The prefrontal cortex] has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behaviour.
Feeling guilt or remorse, and to interpret reality, may be dependent on a well-functioning prefrontal cortex
That encompasses most of the qualities necessary to judge a person capable of self-ownership. There is substantial evidence that the prefrontal cortex still develops until the mid 20s. We could then establish an upper limit of, say, 25 for granting self-ownership from a biological perspective, since the brain won't change significantly thereafter. But certainly, that's an upper limit and self-ownership should occur before, right? 50 years ago we had no problems with the 18 year-old requirement.

Determining the proper time for that transition is incredibly difficult, and even varies from person to person. Should some people be granted self ownership earlier than others? Absolutely. In fact, in extreme cases, society never bestows self-ownership on certain people (those suffering from autism or retardation, for example). From this perspective, it's absurd to pin a hard line on a certain age and apply it to everyone.

In a perfect world, there would be some form of test we could apply to determine if someone is capable of self-ownership. But that begs the question: Who decides what's on the test and the criteria for passing? Certainly the gate-keeper can make the test difficult enough to preclude the majority of the population from self-ownership (and by extension, exercise of the 2nd amendment). It would be an interesting thought experiment to consider what a society would look like being comprised mostly of fully grown children (or maybe not considering the Millenial generation).

But then what of Millenials? That adds a dimension of not just brain development, but also conditioning. I think few would argue that 18 was a poorly chosen age three generations ago. But it seems many argue 18 is a poorly chosen age today. Society has certainly changed its approach in raising children since the first World War. Helicopter parenting, participation awards, "NERFing" the world... is this really the root of our dilemma? Is this why debate has surfaced on the perceived proper age? These parenting techniques seem to delay the ability of self-ownership and might result in people with low empathy and poor grasp of consequences marching into a crowded area and killing random strangers- not even necessarily with guns.

Maybe society is focusing on the wrong side of the equation. Maybe mass shootings are a necessary symptom of a serious sociological disease choking the life out of our civilization. Instead of raising the limit to own a weapon, perhaps we should be steadfast in refusing to change it. Refusing to change it will force society to cure the disease rather than suppress the symptoms. Maybe the only thing that needs to change is the way we raise kids.

But circling around: how do we determine the right time to bestow self-ownership? That remains an incredibly tough question. Perhaps the correct answer is: We can't
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-10-2018, 1:10 AM
hunterb's Avatar
hunterb hunterb is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SGV
Posts: 2,996
iTrader: 70 / 100%
Default

According to Actuarial tables for car insurance companies it's 25....based on math and years of research.....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnthomas View Post
...The hardest part getting rid of crap is getting started.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-10-2018, 4:58 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,694
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaberaynes View Post
25 to BUY any firearm.
But before anyone throws a fit about what I am saying hear me out.

I believe do to the times the age limit to buy should be 25, but to own should be 18 with the parents as a co signer, and responsible for kids actions with them.

I think this would serve a few purposes
1. Parents know if there kids are good or not
2. Will get the parents to start teach there kids how to be adults. And make parents to be involved in there kids lives so they know what there kids doing.
3. Will give access to the 18 year old adults the ability to be adults with some firearm responsibility.
An 18, 19 or 20 year old who happens to not have a living parent would be prohibited from owning a gun for self-defense in the home? What happens if a Mom says no and a Dad says yes? I think married guys already know the answer to that question. What if both parents, or the only living parent, are virulently anti-gun?

An 18 year old misbehaves with a gun and Mom or Dad or also on the hook? No thank, an 18 year old is an adult and deflecting responsibility on to another adult doesn't seem the wise approach.

I come from the "Leave It to Beaver" generation where I suppose parents are responsible adults. That's not the case today. I'd not assume today's parents have the judgement we'd like when it comes to such things.

Rights are dangerous things. Ultimately we must default to them being fully exercised and address those who transgress rather than denying them wholesale for the sake of the illusion of safety.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-10-2018, 9:39 PM
leadchucker leadchucker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This topic is really stupid. Let the other side argue about it. We're talking about a RIGHT! If we want to change it to 25, then O.K.; but, the "child" has to stay home under their parent's authority until they turn 25, too. No voting, no military service, maybe even no driving if the parents say, "No". Anyone out on their own should be able to fully exercise their rights. I can't believe this is even being debated here.

Last edited by leadchucker; 06-10-2018 at 9:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:22 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

We need to stop with the insanity of saying at 18, for legal purposes, people are adults and responsible for their decisions except they cannot legally drink alcohol or buy handguns. Now there is a push to raise the legal age to buy long guns from FFLs to 21.

Many things have changed over my lifetime to lead to the situation we have now where most 18 year olds are not ready to handle adult life and make the adult decisions my generation was expected to make.

When I turned 18, I could legally buy alcohol in many states and I did. CA was not one of those states but ID was and I had relatives there. I took road trips to ID and always visited a bar with a few relatives for a legal drink or two. I also learned to drink responsibly, meaning I did not get drunk nor did I ever drive when drunk.

I also knew full well what would happen if I was pulled over while drunk and my family made it clear I was on my own. Nobody would bail me out.

BTW, I drove to ID by myself the first time when I was 16. That was the last year there was no speed limit in NV and yes I had a car capable of driving 100 mph and I drove that fast, just like my mother and step-father did when I went with them. I knew what would happen if I did not follow their rules. I also had a job that paid for my car, the insurance and the gas money.

My wife and I were married when I was 20 and she was 21 and we are still married.

We raised our son with the same high expectations that we were raised with and he has lived up to them.

We need to pick an age of majority and stop making excuses. Yes, brain development is not complete until around age 25. It was not uncommon 100 or more years ago that 16 year olds were considered adults in most parts of the world and treated as such. It was not uncommon for people to be married by 16 and raising a family. They managed to make all the adult decisions, work, raise a family, and survive.

This year I had two seniors who purposely failed every class because they were afraid to graduate and leave school to enter the next phase of life. They got their wish, the applied to come back as 5th year seniors and it was granted. The administration said they did not want them to suffer the consequences of not graduating high school because they feared the adult world.

My take is to let them suffer the natural consequences. They are out. They have to decide if they want to go to adult school to get their GED or get a job flipping burgers. They made their choice. This is not the first time this has happened. It is happening more often because students have watched it happen before and then realize they can do the same thing. The great thing, they get to spend 2 years doing all the senior activities. The second time around they get special treatment to make sure they graduate. They get the easy teachers that will feel sorry for them and give them a D- even if they earned a 20%.

When they do graduate, they believe the world they are entering will always cater to their fragile psyche. They get hit with reality and end up living with their parents for the rest of their lives or getting disability for having severe mental health issues that prevents them from working. A few whose parents get tired of them and kick them out end up on the crime page of the paper. Every couple of months I open that section to see a former student that has been arrested or killed in a criminally related activity and I have yet to be surprised.

Right now that age is 18. So at 18, every person should have full rights as an adult; legally purchase alcohol, buy firearms, and vote and full responsibilities, military service, jury duty and adult criminal liability for criminal acts. It is all or none. If one is not mature enough at 18 for one of these activities, then one is not mature enough for all and the age of majority needs to be raised. This needs to be done on a national level though. The last thing we need is to have different ages of majority in different states.

Always remember, freedom and rights are dangerous but are much better than government tyranny. Some 18 year olds cannot handle it but others can. Some 50 year olds cannot handle adult decisions but others can. Rather than protect the 50 year olds we allow them to suffer the natural consequences. We need to do the same with the 18 year olds. Do that enough over a long period of time and the message will get out, when you are 18 you have act like an adult. Screw up and the consequences will be severe and life altering. Society will not accept that you are just young and dumb. If you want to be treated as an adult, you have to act as an adult.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-12-2018, 5:10 PM
rugershooter rugershooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadchucker View Post
This topic is really stupid. Let the other side argue about it. We're talking about a RIGHT! If we want to change it to 25, then O.K.; but, the "child" has to stay home under their parent's authority until they turn 25, too. No voting, no military service, maybe even no driving if the parents say, "No". Anyone out on their own should be able to fully exercise their rights. I can't believe this is even being debated here.
Most people don't believe gun ownership is really a right. That includes most gun owners (how many people on here would support eliminating FFLs, mandatory background checks, carry permits, etc.?)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-12-2018, 5:19 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,793
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

18 to buy.

but age to own is 1 second old and above.

if parents want to give their fresh out the womb baby old a gun, that is on the parents. of course make the punishment harsh for the parents if then that baby goes and shoots someone with said gun.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Proof we can all comment on whatever we want if it's at all related to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-12-2018, 6:48 PM
green grunt's Avatar
green grunt green grunt is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lodi
Posts: 880
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

How many 18 year olds died in combat in ..say...the last 3 wars ?

18 is old enough to fight and die for OUR country , lets not be taking away any rights they are entitled to...



Semper Fi.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-12-2018, 10:26 PM
gruntinhusaybah gruntinhusaybah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 234
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

N/A

If I had it my way there would be no restrictions.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-22-2018, 5:29 AM
GDC GDC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 87
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterb View Post
According to Actuarial tables for car insurance companies it's 25....based on math and years of research.....
Nope, I have dealt with those numbers myself. 30 is safer for drivers than 25 for driving, 40 better still. There are obviously peaks on efficacy , ie diminishing returns on limits on driving age, but without a doubt starting issuing licences at 40 would be less road deaths than starting at 26.

Every reduction in drivers licences issued, be it by age or having people prove a reason to need a drivers licences would result in less deaths.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:57 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.