Handguns under 14?

K

Konono

Verified User
Earlier this week a polarizing Iowa bill that would let children use handguns passed through the state’s House of Representatives and is on its way to its Senate.

The Youth Safety & Parental Rights Act (House File 2281), which was among five gun proposals under discussion earlier this week, has been a contentious issue — dividing even supporters of the Second Amendment. If successful, people under the age of 14 would be permitted to handle “a pistol, revolver or the ammunition” in the presence of an adult.

Current law prohibits anyone under 14 to use handguns, and plenty of Iowans want to keep it that way.

http://news.yahoo.com/-a-militia-of...-even-2nd-amendment-supporters-193721517.html

I'm not a big gun rights advocate, but if they can handle rifles, why not handguns if done the presence of an adult?

pssssst, for Moony, my words are in blue so as not to confuse you and the title is mine

:)
 
My kids all shoot and have since they were about 9. They all started as soon as they passed their hunters safety courses and under the supervision of the 4H programs and they all went small game and later larger game hunting with me. The eldest is in the military, the youngest is around 12 now...

This is just weird to me.
 
Like Damocles, my kids were taught from a young age and I wonder too, why this is codified at all.

A DoJ study showed that children and adolescents who are introduced to safe and responsible gun use by family are much less likely to engage in criminal behavior and drug use (less even than children not exposed to guns):


"By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys own illegal guns (7 percent) than own legal guns (3 percent). Of the boys who own illegal guns, about half of the whites and African-Americans and nearly 90 percent of the Hispanics carry them on a regular basis.

Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and delinquency and drug use. Seventy-four percent of the illegal gunowners commit street crimes, 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use drugs. Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.

socialization_gun_ownership_zps5dbe0c9b.jpg

The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place “on the street.”"


Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings, pg. 18
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/urdel.pdf​
 
Legion Troll said:
There's no mention of an age requirement in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

The right to arms is not granted by the 2nd, thus it is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

The right doesn't exist because of what the 2nd Amendment says, it exists and is possessed by the citizen because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.
 
Abatis said:
The right to arms is not granted by the 2nd, thus it is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

The right doesn't exist because of what the 2nd Amendment says, it exists and is possessed by the citizen because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.
Click to expand...

The citizen's age isn't mentioned, therefore childrens' rights to bear arms shall not be infringed, right?
 
Legion Troll said:
The citizen's age isn't mentioned, therefore childrens' rights to bear arms shall not be infringed, right?
Click to expand...

Society has deemed children not full members of the political class able to claim the full breadth of civil and political rights.

I don't have a problem with that.

Do you believe children should be able to enter into contracts, be elected to public office or hold employment in the public trust or marry (or at least be legally recognized as having the ability to freely enter into sexual relations with anyone)?

Your attempt to hold up gun rights disablement for children as some sort of deviation from US (Lockean) rights theory is just heaping fail on top of fail.
 
Abatis said:
Society has deemed children not full members of the political class able to claim the full breadth of civil and political rights.

I don't have a problem with that.

Do you believe children should be able to enter into contracts, be elected to public office or hold employment in the public trust or marry (or at least be legally recognized as having the ability to freely enter into sexual relations with anyone)?

Your attempt to hold up gun rights disablement for children as some sort of deviation from US (Lockean) rights theory is just heaping fail on top of fail.
Click to expand...

Where did society do this ?
Tangents are fun but pointless. The constitution covers this specifically.
 
Legion Troll said:
Abatis said:
Society has deemed children not full members of the political class able to claim the full breadth of civil and political rights.

I don't have a problem with that.

Do you believe children should be able to enter into contracts, be elected to public office or hold employment in the public trust or marry (or at least be legally recognized as having the ability to freely enter into sexual relations with anyone)?

Your attempt to hold up gun rights disablement for children as some sort of deviation from US (Lockean) rights theory is just heaping fail on top of fail.
Click to expand...

Is it?
Click to expand...

Yes . . . And that non-response is just polishing the fail.

The non-fail answer would be to note specific exception to what I wrote, proceed to explain your disagreement and then articulate an opposing position in a persuasive, not condescending manner.

I understand why you can't . . .
 
Abatis said:
Like Damocles, my kids were taught from a young age and I wonder too, why this is codified at all.

A DoJ study showed that children and adolescents who are introduced to safe and responsible gun use by family are much less likely to engage in criminal behavior and drug use (less even than children not exposed to guns):


"By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys own illegal guns (7 percent) than own legal guns (3 percent). Of the boys who own illegal guns, about half of the whites and African-Americans and nearly 90 percent of the Hispanics carry them on a regular basis.

Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and delinquency and drug use. Seventy-four percent of the illegal gunowners commit street crimes, 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use drugs. Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.

socialization_gun_ownership_zps5dbe0c9b.jpg

The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place “on the street.”"


Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings, pg. 18
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/urdel.pdf​
Click to expand...

I've always owned handguns and all my children and grandchildren have known that they are off limits.

I would rather have a handgun and never need to use it, rather then need one and not have one.
 
Abatis said:
Yes . . . And that non-response is just polishing the fail. The non-fail answer would be to note specific exception to what I wrote, proceed to explain your disagreement and then articulate an opposing position in a persuasive, not condescending manner. I understand why you can't . . .
Click to expand...

Is copying me the best you can do?
 
Konono said:
Earlier this week a polarizing Iowa bill that would let children use handguns passed through the state’s House of Representatives and is on its way to its Senate.

The Youth Safety & Parental Rights Act (House File 2281), which was among five gun proposals under discussion earlier this week, has been a contentious issue — dividing even supporters of the Second Amendment. If successful, people under the age of 14 would be permitted to handle “a pistol, revolver or the ammunition” in the presence of an adult.

Current law prohibits anyone under 14 to use handguns, and plenty of Iowans want to keep it that way.

http://news.yahoo.com/-a-militia-of...-even-2nd-amendment-supporters-193721517.html

I'm not a big gun rights advocate, but if they can handle rifles, why not handguns if done the presence of an adult?

pssssst, for Moony, my words are in blue so as not to confuse you and the title is mine

:)
Click to expand...

Guess you missed the reports of children shooting themselves to death under adult supervision with machine pistols.
Long guns are safer for children who have much less strength than adults due to a physics phenomonon known as leverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top