Guns and Kids
The only system proven capable of controlling gun ownership, or ownership of anything, is the free market. If gun ownership is expensive, then those who don’t really care that much about owning them will give them up, and those who really care about their gun ownership and use will keep them.
The question of gun ownership needs to change to a question of whether or not the gun owner is capable of responsible ownership, not whether the gun is capable of killing how many or how quickly. Owning the means to take a life with little forethought or effort is an awesome responsibility and should be restricted to persons that can show they have the mental capability and training that can assure responsible ownership of a weapon, no matter what the age of the owner.
First, why do we place less significance on the responsibilities that are inherent in gun ownership than we do with the ability to drive a car? All gun purchasers should be required to pass an examination on gun responsibility (safety and use) to be licensed, the same as you have to have a license showing you’re capable of driving a car. The license to own a weapon should be either a federal license accepted by all states, or a state licenses with universal criteria accepted by all states. Separately, a license to carry should remain state determined.
Second, gun owners should be required to carry personal liability insurance the same as vehicular drivers, and the cost of the insurance should be determined by the potential damage that can be caused by the nature or the weapon, and the capability of its user. Therefore, there would be minimal cost for a gun-safety-licensed youngster owning a single shot break-open .410 that is used to hunt rabbits or game birds, than would be the cost to a person with a history of violence, or threatening violence, who owns an AR-15.
If a parent has a weapon for a minor child, that child needs to be covered by the parent's liability insurance, and if the child misuses the weapon then the parent is held liable. If the acts or background of an owner results in their not being able to get a license or get liability insurance for their weapon, they’d either have to sell the weapon to a licensed and insured individual, or store the weapon in a licensed secure facility until they could show proof that they are both licensed and insured for that weapon. The cost of insurance would vary depending on the weapon, the same as liability insurance costs vary depending on the type of vehicle you drive, and on the background and training of the owner, same as you can’t drive an 18-wheeler with an automobile license and without passing a commercial truck driving exam.
Anyone caught with a weapon in their possession without both proof of insurance and a gun ownership license would be subject to a fine and potential confiscation. However, like driving without auto registration or proof of insurance, if the person cited then showed up in court with a license to own the weapon in the citation and proof of insurance, their charges would be dropped immediately, or deferred for a period of time to show no reoccurrence and then dropped.
To summarize, why not develop a competitive private liability insurance market that governs gun ownership economically rather than believing the government bureaucrats will ever get it right?
Now as to the age of a person entitled to buy a weapon of any type. No person under 18 years old should be able to acquire any firearm. It would have to be acquired by that person’s parent or guardian whose gun liability insurance included the minor as an insured. Again, to be covered, the insurance company would have to have proof that both the adult and the minor were certified and licensed to be in possession of that particular weapon. Once the person is over 18, they should be able to acquire any legal weapon they want as long as they are certified, licensed and insured for that weapon.
If you're going to prohibit an 18 year old from buying a weapon of any kind based on his age and assumed immaturity, then you better assume he's also incompetent to vote and take away that right. Next, take away the ability for the justice system to automatically criminally charge him as an adult. And finally prohibit him from being in the military where he might make a childish decision costing the lives of fellow service members. In other words, at some point this country has to decide, once and for all, at what age does a person gain all the rights of an adult and lose all the protections of a minor, then base all its laws on that decision.
At the same time, the gun ownership problem is not age. In our rural history, boys regularly got semi-automatic .22 rifles on their 12th birthday, but they didn't go on killing sprees. Girls regularly married at 16, sometimes as young as 14, and started responsible families. Boys at the same age often took over most, if not all, of a family's financial responsibilities if they lost the male head of household. The problem is not with their age, but with how problem children are raised having little or no moral guidance, and with their beliefs that they deserve everything right now with no concept of deferred expectations. Kids of the past had responsibilities, knew their roles in their families and communities, and were secure in knowing that they belonged. Family, social and religious covenants provided strict boundaries they knew they were expected to live within. Today the erosion and sometimes total loss of those boundaries leaves many youth floundering trying to find their way without the guidance of tradition and rules. Their parents avoid giving them unpopular limitations without understanding that limitations provide easier paths to follow and succeed. Hence failures reinforce failures, leaving them feeling powerless, that they don’t belong, that their lives have little meaning or purpose, that they have no future. When bullied, the little kid used to resort to owning a switch blade knife to make himself feel powerful. Today it is a gun. Until people young and old each feel that they have a place and a purpose and a belief that they are seen as having value, acts of violence will continue, and lest we not forget, the most common act of violence is one perpetrated on oneself.
The question of gun ownership needs to change to a question of whether or not the gun owner is capable of responsible ownership, not whether the gun is capable of killing how many or how quickly. Owning the means to take a life with little forethought or effort is an awesome responsibility and should be restricted to persons that can show they have the mental capability and training that can assure responsible ownership of a weapon, no matter what the age of the owner.
First, why do we place less significance on the responsibilities that are inherent in gun ownership than we do with the ability to drive a car? All gun purchasers should be required to pass an examination on gun responsibility (safety and use) to be licensed, the same as you have to have a license showing you’re capable of driving a car. The license to own a weapon should be either a federal license accepted by all states, or a state licenses with universal criteria accepted by all states. Separately, a license to carry should remain state determined.
Second, gun owners should be required to carry personal liability insurance the same as vehicular drivers, and the cost of the insurance should be determined by the potential damage that can be caused by the nature or the weapon, and the capability of its user. Therefore, there would be minimal cost for a gun-safety-licensed youngster owning a single shot break-open .410 that is used to hunt rabbits or game birds, than would be the cost to a person with a history of violence, or threatening violence, who owns an AR-15.
If a parent has a weapon for a minor child, that child needs to be covered by the parent's liability insurance, and if the child misuses the weapon then the parent is held liable. If the acts or background of an owner results in their not being able to get a license or get liability insurance for their weapon, they’d either have to sell the weapon to a licensed and insured individual, or store the weapon in a licensed secure facility until they could show proof that they are both licensed and insured for that weapon. The cost of insurance would vary depending on the weapon, the same as liability insurance costs vary depending on the type of vehicle you drive, and on the background and training of the owner, same as you can’t drive an 18-wheeler with an automobile license and without passing a commercial truck driving exam.
Anyone caught with a weapon in their possession without both proof of insurance and a gun ownership license would be subject to a fine and potential confiscation. However, like driving without auto registration or proof of insurance, if the person cited then showed up in court with a license to own the weapon in the citation and proof of insurance, their charges would be dropped immediately, or deferred for a period of time to show no reoccurrence and then dropped.
To summarize, why not develop a competitive private liability insurance market that governs gun ownership economically rather than believing the government bureaucrats will ever get it right?
Now as to the age of a person entitled to buy a weapon of any type. No person under 18 years old should be able to acquire any firearm. It would have to be acquired by that person’s parent or guardian whose gun liability insurance included the minor as an insured. Again, to be covered, the insurance company would have to have proof that both the adult and the minor were certified and licensed to be in possession of that particular weapon. Once the person is over 18, they should be able to acquire any legal weapon they want as long as they are certified, licensed and insured for that weapon.
If you're going to prohibit an 18 year old from buying a weapon of any kind based on his age and assumed immaturity, then you better assume he's also incompetent to vote and take away that right. Next, take away the ability for the justice system to automatically criminally charge him as an adult. And finally prohibit him from being in the military where he might make a childish decision costing the lives of fellow service members. In other words, at some point this country has to decide, once and for all, at what age does a person gain all the rights of an adult and lose all the protections of a minor, then base all its laws on that decision.
At the same time, the gun ownership problem is not age. In our rural history, boys regularly got semi-automatic .22 rifles on their 12th birthday, but they didn't go on killing sprees. Girls regularly married at 16, sometimes as young as 14, and started responsible families. Boys at the same age often took over most, if not all, of a family's financial responsibilities if they lost the male head of household. The problem is not with their age, but with how problem children are raised having little or no moral guidance, and with their beliefs that they deserve everything right now with no concept of deferred expectations. Kids of the past had responsibilities, knew their roles in their families and communities, and were secure in knowing that they belonged. Family, social and religious covenants provided strict boundaries they knew they were expected to live within. Today the erosion and sometimes total loss of those boundaries leaves many youth floundering trying to find their way without the guidance of tradition and rules. Their parents avoid giving them unpopular limitations without understanding that limitations provide easier paths to follow and succeed. Hence failures reinforce failures, leaving them feeling powerless, that they don’t belong, that their lives have little meaning or purpose, that they have no future. When bullied, the little kid used to resort to owning a switch blade knife to make himself feel powerful. Today it is a gun. Until people young and old each feel that they have a place and a purpose and a belief that they are seen as having value, acts of violence will continue, and lest we not forget, the most common act of violence is one perpetrated on oneself.
