If you listen to the show for any length of time you learn that my position on guns isn't the NRA's nor is it those hellbent on gun confiscation. I'm in the middle, where you ought to be when dealing with issues of this magnitude. While I'm no cheerleader for the NRA, what New Jersey Democrats offered up this week in the way of new gun control legislation is unnecessary.

A bill has been introduced that would hike the minimum age to buy a rifle or shotgun in New Jersey from 18 to 21. You can bet it's because the shooter in Parkland, FL was 19 years old and he bought a weapon legally in Florida, a state with much looser regulations for purchase than Jersey. What they'll point to is data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report showing 18 to 20 year-olds committing gun homicides four times more than those who are 21 or older. What's not being pointed out is those who are looking to use a gun to commit homicide aren't looking to do it with a legal gun. It's irrational to think someone who won't care about an act of murder will at the same time suddenly care about whether the murder weapon is legally acquired. America is awash in illegal guns. It isn't hard to get one. Moreover, look how many times killings have happened where the perfectly legal gun was the property of someone else in the house where the 18 to 20 year-old lived. Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook elementary shooting is one example.

Of course advocates of stricter gun laws will break out other statistics. Assemblyman Roy Freeman points out, "Research shows that the adolescent brain is still maturing in the teenage years, which is why teens often make decisions instinctively and without weighing the consequences." Is that how you came up with this legislation Roy? He offers this up without pointing out this is not a new thing, only a new discovery. If indeed the brain still changes until the mid-twenties, it was always this way. It was this way throughout human history when we sent 18 year-olds off to war in the 1940's. It was this way when most people married soon after high school and were raising their own children in their early to mid-twenties. In fact we still allow men and women to enlist in the armed forces between 18 and 20 even though "the adolescent brain is still maturing in the teenage years" and they could be susceptible to making "decisions instinctively and without weighing the consequences."

So what's the difference to politicians? Having a military with strong, able-bodied people suits their needs. Having civilians able to protect themselves once they are adults does not.

Which brings us to another point. If lawmakers and so-called leaders are going to constantly shuffle the cards on when one is and when one is not an adult doesn't it become problematic? You're an adult when it comes to smoking at 21 but just last year it was 19. You're an adult when it comes to drinking at 21. You're an adult when it comes to voting, marrying, serving your country at 18. You're an adult when it comes to owning a gun for protection at 18 but they want to change that to say you're not an adult until 21. Yet not long ago you could still smoke at 19. Here's a fun fact. The government says passive smoking is harmful to non-smokers and kills 41,280 of them every year in the United States. Same government says guns kill 32,393 people per year, and 21,175 of those are suicides. Yet until recently you could be sold cigarettes in Jersey at 19 but they want to make it 21 for a gun. Hmmm.

Society needs to agree when adulthood begins. Since one can vote, marry, serve their country, participate in jury duty, enter legal contracts and buy a home and a car at 18, I believe it's already been settled. The government has no business telling an adult they cannot protect themselves.

More from New Jersey 101.5