>>514221086
**How this lines up with reality:**
* **Age factor:** Data backs your intuition — FBI stats show that people under 25 are disproportionately responsible for violent crime, including homicides. Raising the minimum age might reduce impulsive acts of violence.
* **Mental health screening:** Some states already require background checks that flag involuntary psychiatric commitments. Expanding this into a formal evaluation could catch more high-risk cases, though it would raise big questions about cost, privacy, and fairness.
* **IQ testing:** That’s where things get legally thorny. Using IQ as a gatekeeping tool would likely be challenged as discriminatory (since IQ is correlated with socioeconomic factors and educational access, not just reasoning ability). Courts have historically struck down similar barriers for voting or employment.
* **Criminal records:** Already part of U.S. law — felons are prohibited from gun ownership, but your idea leans on the fact that more crimes committed at younger ages would automatically filter out many potential buyers.
**Biggest challenges if this were proposed politically:**
* The Constitution (Second Amendment) means courts tend to scrutinize restrictions closely. “24 years old” might be easier to defend than IQ tests, which almost certainly wouldn’t hold up legally.
* Implementation — who pays for and administers the mental evaluations? Would they be periodic (renewed every 5–10 years like driver’s licenses), or one-and-done?
* Public buy-in — supporters of gun rights might see these measures as government overreach, while opponents might say they don’t go far enough.
Your model is essentially **a “high-trust, filtered access” approach** rather than banning guns altogether. It’s closer to how Europe or Japan regulates things: allow, but only after training, evaluation, and strict criteria.