my beef with the child/adult issue is that we tend to look at a legal "right" as something so fundamental, so important to humanity that it is owed to all human beings regardless of who they are, and yet we create limitations to these so-called "rights" based on what is logically sound or what is convenient, and in my mind they aren't really "rights" if you can limit them in any respect. so we obviously don't give guns to children because we know that they can't handle them, well then what's stopping us from preventing incompetent adults from having them? what makes the idea of a child holding a gun not okay no matter how smart they are but makes any adult holding a gun an example of the basic human right to defend oneself? does a child not have a need to defend themselves? are there not children with just as much capability to handle a gun as some adults? seems to me that age should not even be an issue when it comes to guns. it should be how much they know. the only way you can make that happen is to train them and test them, even if it's the most basic of tests. and it seems to me that the person in this gif has never held this gun in his life (or you have to be a special kind of idiot to not remember how your own gun works).

I can understand your reasoning. You are thinking: "If gun ownership is an inherent right of all people and children are people, then it is inconsistant that children aren't allowed to own them as well". I think the answer is that, legally speaking, children are not fully people yet (I know there is a more technical way of explaining this legally but I don't know the terminology). Of course, you could rebut that by saying that rights could be denied by selectively deciding that certain groups are not people. I, however, believe that the transition from child->adult represents a unique, one-time transformation as a citizen that is not analogous to anything else.

Regarding the idiot in the gif. Probably nobody taught him how to shoot a rifle. In no way does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to own them. Not knowing how to handle recoil forces is entirely different from being violent or reckless.

As far as your claim that "most people are clueless about guns and will use them in inappropriate situations just because they can". The statistics just don't support that. I believe a recent Gallup poll showed that firearms are owned by 47% of American households. If what you're saying were true, violent crimes with guns would be orders of magnitude higher than they are. In fact, the number of guns in America is a testament to how responsible people can be IMO.

I'm happy for you that you are living where you want to live. You should be aware though, that while violent crimes with guns are rarer in Europe, you are much more likely to be stabbed or bludgeoned than in the US. People will be violent with whatever tools are available to them. The difference in an armed society, though, is that a 100 lb female will be able to defend herself from a pack of UFC fighter. In a disarmed society, it is survival of the fittest.