I'm diminishing what time I spend on the Internet and news sites, but this was too nuanced to ignore.
http://uverse.com/watch/h___60692587?ref=yfp
Sensationalism aside ("But I wanna try them NOW!", "The gun lobby"), I'm actually very torn on this issue. Handguns operate differently from long rifles. You have to try really hard to shift a rifle barrel from downrange to an unsafe target; but it doesn't take much to adjust the aim of a handgun to point at someone else. In Arizona, you have to be 21 to purchase a pistol, but only 18 for a long rifle. I took a friend to the range and she instantly agreed that was a good choice by the state. The poor girl given a fully-automatic Uzi submachine gun (more of an oversized pistol than a rifle) who accidentally shot her rangemaster reinforces this.
I do believe it's ultimately up to the parents and children to responsibly and safely own and operate their firearms, whatever their firearms. You can hand a toddler a handgun and they can use it safely, provided adequate supervision. It can be done. And using a long gun instead does not make you safer if the barrel is pointed in an unsafe direction. Behavior is imperative. I make this distinction strictly due to the erratic nature of sub-teen children, and the harder-to-control nature of handguns as opposed to long rifles.
May Iowa do what Iowa wants. If I saw similar legislation in Arizona, I would vote against it for the reason stated above.
I agree with your conclusion. There a plenty of things with far less capacity to harm that we deny children in the name of safety, and due to their unpredictability and immaturity many of these are wise. I certainly think handguns should be among these.
ReplyDelete