Originally Posted by
MrSplitshot
I'll play devil's advocate. Do you really think a kid is responsible enough to be out handling a firearm on his own? Would you send your 12 year old out into the woods with a 20 gauge and 3 of his buddies?
I got my first .22 rifle when I was 10 years old and was taught how to handle it safely...but honestly, I can't ever remember being out with it target shooting or squirrel hunting without adult supervision until I was older. Dad wouldn't let me. Kids are dumb.
I don't see the need for the law and really think there are bigger fish to fry in this country than trying to fix a problem that isn't really a problem...but taking whatever political need it serves out of the equation and looking at strictly the theory behind it...I'd probably support it if the age was 16 years old. If the state thinks you're not old enough to operate a motor vehicle, why would possessing/handling a firearm without adult supervision be okay? The proposed age of 21, however, is ridiculous. Like was said above, you can go to war at 18. I think that if you're old enough to vote and go to war that you ought to be able to buy beer and smokes and porn and whatever else at 18 too, but that's just me.
Parents should be with their kids if they're using guns up to a certain age. You're not passing on a sporting tradition if you're not there with the kid to teach them. Sending them out with a gun, unsupervised, isn't passing on much. A kid can't go buy a gun, so why should it be okay for them to posess/use one without supervision? I agree that parents ought to make these decisions, but let's face it - There are plenty of parents these days that aint worth a crap. Your kid could be out target shooting with one of their kids tomorrow. I don't know that a law would stop that, but it couldn't really hurt either. It could actually HELP pass on more of the sporting tradition when you think about it. Requiring more involvment from adults isn't necessarily a bad thing.
My two cents...