What should be minimum age to own firearms, 18 or 25?

12, they should make the legally adult age 12 - and actually start teaching kids things they need to know much earlier. not the other way around ... I agree poeple are more immature, but we should fix that problem, and not give into lax schooling and upbringing, we should maybe up our game so to speak, and stop letting kids down so much all the time.

18 for all things adult.


If you can be drafted and killed in combat you should be to get married, drink a beer, smoke a cigarette, and purchase and own a gun.

Same age that you are allowed to vote and join or be drafted into the military.

A factor is purchase vs possession.

I have no issue with limiting purchase from dealers to over 18, put possession under 18 can be regulated by parents/guardians.

16 year old Johnny Responsible is different than 16 year old Johnny Gangbanger. Individual conduct should override blanket laws.

On another note, not to derail this thread but this makes sense about maturity, brain development, and age.

18. Eighteen year old people deserve the right to defend themselves from other 18 year old people who were never going to follow the law and hurt other young people anyway.

Maturity starts at home. A Mom or Dad is responsible for showing a child what is right or wrong, what's acceptable behavior and what is not by demanding accountability.

Whatever age it is, it needs to be consistent. If we believe someone isn't "emotional mature" enough at 18 to own a firearm, how can they possibly be mature enough at 18 to vote, live on their own, handle multi-million dollar equipment in the military, gamble, get married, sit on a jury, and buy fireworks?

I believe that ALL "adult" rights should come at the same age, and that age should be 18, including buying and consuming alcohol and buying handguns.

Either you are an adult or you are not. No half-measures, no kinda-sorta. Pick an age that we become adult and make that age for all things requiring adult responsibility. I say make it 18 years old for everything.

I believe 18 is the right age. An 18 year old should have the same access to these basic tools of self-defense as any other adult. There are people of every age who aren't 'mature' enough to properly handle a firearm. I don't like the idea of making laws for the lowest common denominator. I think 18 should be the line for all things 'adult'. At 18 I was living in my own house with a spouse and mortgage. Waiting 3 more years to own a handgun was unjust!

Ru4real said:

If Johnny Responsible commits armed robbery, does Johnny Parent serve time?

Click to expand...

What happens currently?

I admit that I am not totally "up" on the juvenile justice system. Seems to me that both Johnny Formerly Responsible and Johnny Parents are to blame, but mostly the robber himself.

The child soldiers of Africa (and other warring places) generally "recruit" at about the same age as US criminal gangs do--around 12-13.
There are reasons for that. Virtually all of those are not THR content. No matter how interesting and thought provoking. Plenty of venues where this is being (hotly) debated.

I believe that it should be 16 for Shotguns, 18 for everything else. In my state, a 16 year old can get a drivers license, buy a car, get a normal hunting license, and legally hunt on their own without "adult" supervision, but they cannot buy a firearm or ammunition from any store. If the person is responsible enough to drive a 2 ton machine capable of splattering a man like a mosquito, capable of being trusted to safely identify and shoot at game animals, and trusted to possess a firearm without adult supervision, they should be trusted to purchase a firearm as well. What "life experience" that one would get between 18 and 25 makes an individual inherently more safe with a firearm?

Since 18 is the legal age for most things adult, then 18.

The maturity thing is a parent-based thing, and I think thats where things have gone awry for a lot of the younger generation these days. We grew up with a lot of responsibilities are a very young age, and were held to the house rules pretty strictly. We also grew up rural, and thats yet another issue Ive seen.

Our kids had their own rifles the day they were born, and were shooing on a weekly basis since they were 4. They also had responsibilities early as we did.

From what I saw living in the suburbs and small cities where we were living as the kids were growing up (80's and 90's), many adults we saw at the ranges we used to shoot at, were pretty shaky with guns, no matter what the age was. I trusted my kids at 4 and 5 to safely handle firearms more than a lot of them, and they even corrected the behavior of a few adults, as they were taught that anyone who saw something unsafe has the right and duty to immediately speak up. Correcting adults normally didnt fly, but in those cases they did, they werent wrong either.

I think the problem with a lot of the younger generation these days is, depends on where you live, and who their influences are. And unfortunately too, what the crap they are being taught in school. You have to debrief them every day when they get home, and a lot of times, what they were taught at home, is contrary to the rules of the schools.

We live in a very rural, farming area, and most of the kids here, are definitely at a maturity level that is a lot higher than the kids in suburbs and cities.

City or country though, we still have rights, and as an adult who can vote, or die for their country, you get the same rights as anyone else. And its also your responsibility if you screw up, and you have to deal with the consequences, just like any other adult.

Although these days, it seems a lot depends on what your political affiliation is and who controls where you live and how that goes.

WheelGunMan said:

Maturity starts at home. A Mom or Dad is responsible for showing a child what is right or wrong, what's acceptable behavior and what is not by demanding accountability.

Click to expand...

This, absolutely.

bassjam said:

I believe that ALL "adult" rights should come at the same age, and that age should be 18, including buying and consuming alcohol and buying handguns.

Click to expand...

Disagree. The exercise of rights / privileges carries with it various degrees of potential harm. I think there should be a sliding scale, balancing potential harm with the demonstrated maturity of the individual. And, access to guns has possibly the greatest potential harm, if they fall into the wrong hands.

I don't have a problem with an 18 year old having a gun, if they come from a stable family background, have done well in school, and otherwise proven that they are responsible. Perhaps there should be an age range, say 18 -21, where we issue a sort of "learner's permit" or have a probationary period.

AlexanderA said:

This, absolutely.

Disagree. The exercise of rights / privileges carries with it various degrees of potential harm. I think there should be a sliding scale, balancing potential harm with the demonstrated maturity of the individual. And, access to guns has possibly the greatest potential harm, if they fall into the wrong hands.

I don't have a problem with an 18 year old having a gun, if they come from a stable family background, have done well in school, and otherwise proven that they are responsible. Perhaps there should be an age range, say 18 -21, where we issue a sort of "learner's permit" or have a probationary period.

Click to expand...

The problem here is, that pesky Constitution gets in the way.

Ru4real said:

Interesting. Maybe serving in the military has the greatest potential harm. So you need to be 65 before selective service pulls you into a mandatory military career. You are 20 years from death anyway at 65, so why not?

I guarantee our foreign campaigns, like Afghanistan, would quickly end.

Click to expand...

The reason they want them at 17 and 18 is because they are still dumb enough and conditioned to do as they are told. All youd get from a 65 year old is GFY!

AlexanderA said:

This, absolutely.

Disagree. The exercise of rights / privileges carries with it various degrees of potential harm. I think there should be a sliding scale, balancing potential harm with the demonstrated maturity of the individual. And, access to guns has possibly the greatest potential harm, if they fall into the wrong hands.

I don't have a problem with an 18 year old having a gun, if they come from a stable family background, have done well in school, and otherwise proven that they are responsible. Perhaps there should be an age range, say 18 -21, where we issue a sort of "learner's permit" or have a probationary period.

Click to expand...

First let me say 18 years of age is completely arbitrary. Most people may be ready at 18, a few may not but we expect them ALL to be read at that age. We cannot as a society make a sliding scale for the age of accountability. The courts are there for the extreme cases but if we decide that 18 is the number then that is the number hard and fast, despite being arbitrary.

The "learning permit" or "probationary period" for all your rights happened 0-18*, that is plenty of time to mature and learn them

*or whatever arbitrary age of accountability we as a society choose.

The important factor for me is that once you have reach the age of accountability all your rights and responsibilities turn on. This idea of partial rights or responsibilities for some people due to age (or most any other factor) is repugnant, this is an all or nothing point in a persons life. Until that person has done something to forfeit those rights and responsibilities I expect a person at or above the age of accountability to be able to enjoy all the rights of a free-person and meet all the responsibility those rights demand of them.

I agree with others, If you are old enough to die for your country defending everyone's rights, you should be able to purchase any type of firearm along with alcohol and tobacco products. And Yes I joined the Army as soon as I turned 17 (with parental permission)

Ru4real said:

Interesting. Maybe serving in the military has the greatest potential harm. So you need to be 65 before selective service pulls you into a mandatory military career. You are 20 years from death anyway at 65, so why not?

I guarantee our foreign campaigns, like Afghanistan, would quickly end.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of us old timers that have already served that would gladly take the place of some 17-22 year old. And yes wars would end quickly with all of us old codgers in the combat zone since we are old and cranky and won't take crap for anyone. Just give us plenty of coffee, beans and bullets, then stay out of our way.