“Many 18-year-olds are still in high school. Will they forget and carry their weapons to school as apparently so many adult concealed carriers ‘forget’ and take their guns to the airport? (Yes, I know, the next step could be to allow guns on high school campuses as they are currently allowed on public college campuses). There’s a reason Utah does not allow those under 21 to buy liquor. Shouldn’t that reasoning be applied to legally carrying concealed lethal weapons?” – Dee Rowland, Letter: Teen suicides high enough without more access to guns [via sltrib.com]
It hasn’t caused any major issues in Indiana…
I got my Indiana carry permit at 18 and never “forgot” my firearm was on me and carried it into school. In my opinion, if 18-year-olds in military are responsible enough to be trusted with multi-million dollar weapon systems that are capable of erasing entire city blocks with the push of a button, then 18-year-olds who are licensed by the state are responsible enough to legally carry a handgun.
Not to mention that the military will issue an 18 year-old a genuine, honest-to-God assault rifle.
You’re forgetting or ignoring the training, discipline and structure of the military. Having once been an eighteen year old, albeit a long time ago, and having owned businesses that employed young people, I agree that 21 yrs old should be the minimum. Although also arbitrary, it give youngsters a few extra years to mature and at least get out of high school. If you have any experience working with young people, you realize there is a huge range in terms of responsibility. My own experience also agrees to the common opinion that girls mature faster than boys … at least that is what I saw in my businesses. Give a girl a task to do and generally she will do it. Give a boy a task and often as not, he will be caught only partially completing it and goofing off or getting into mischief or flirting with a female employee. The army figured out a long time ago the way to get things done with young men was to put them into groups with a strong leader. Put an older individual in charge of a group of boys to unload a truck, as a team effort, and they get a lot done, just like a squad leader in the military. The other thing the army knows is how to utilize the male ego and group allegiance to their benefit. Young men don’t die for their country…they die for their buddies. Young males also think they are immortal … death is a distant, far off possibility, while ego and honor are much more important, real, and here and now … a big factor in gang violence. I would also point to both neuroscience’s studies of male emotional maturity which indicate it is not complete until the mid-twenties and the studies of young male drivers. Why do you think they have the highest car insurance rates? They are based on real statistics, not opinons. Maybe you think your 18 yr old is “mature”, but a larger survey on your part will show otherwise.
Well there are some folks who are never old enough… And one could argue voting rights is more dangerous than being allowed to carry a firearm…
So @FlaBoy is practically saying that 18 is too young for a male to reliably make responsible decisions unless there’s someone yelling in his face.
A compelling argument I must admit, but you can’t pick and choose when you decide someone is old enough to qualify for constitutional protection.
Military conscription age = voting age = drinking age = firearm buying age = firearm carrying age = …everything.
You can’t bend this, or else they’ll start drafting 15 year olds (Hitler youth) and bend the CHL age into a new, progressive, metric that actually means something like a “character reference” like they do in the People’s Republics of Europe.
You have to be a hardass about your number. If you want to suggest people are children until 21 years of age, then do. But be consistent, else I’ll starting arguing your daughter is actually as mature at 16 as a male is at 21 and is smart enough to choose who she has sex with without your or Johnny Law’s input.
“If you have any experience working with young people, you realize there is a huge range in terms of responsibility.”
If you have any experience working with
youngpeople, you realize there is a huge range in terms of responsibility.
Some of the most irresponsible people I’ve ever met were in their late 40’s or into their 50’s. The guys that pissed and moaned about millennials constantly were the same guys who couldn’t put down the bottle and show up to work on time C&S. The millennials, such as myself, these guys claimed were so lazy did all the work because the old guys were nursing a hangover until noon or later five days a week (probably seven but I didn’t hang out with them on my days off).
There’s a similarity between respect and responsibility in that neither one is given away free and neither one just appears at a certain age. No disrespect to the old timers intended but respect is not something that comes at a certain age like an AARP card. Responsibility is no different in that regard. Respect is earned. Responsibility is instilled.
“The guys that pissed and moaned about millennials” were the guys who helped ruin this country. Millennials didn’t create the welfare state or make Social Security, a ponzi scheme, the third rail of politics. Also, millennials weren’t the ones handing out trophies to everyone; that was the baby boomers.
Tx . Boomers did not create social security. That was the greatest generation. And the ball got started on welfare under the greatest generations watch
I was saying that the boomers were the ones handing out the trophies to all the millennials. Perhaps a paragraph break would have made that more clear.
I’d say that the generation before the greatest, and perhaps the one before that, along with the greatest generation are the ones gave us Social Security.
And every generation since, including the boomers, have prevented any reform of what would be doubly a criminal enterprise if any but the government did it. Doubly because it is a forced taking like all taxation, and it is a Ponzi scheme.
I am just tired of everyone dumping on millennials when it was previous generations, starting with the Roosevelt administration, who have been pushing us towards a socialist state with no personal responsibility.
Technically, you can join the modern U.S. forces at 17 years of age.
Some qualifications are required by all five services:
•You must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien.
•You must be at least 17 years old (17-year old applicants require parental consent).
•You must (with very few exceptions) have a high school diploma.
•You must pass a physical medical exam.
I was kinda expecting another “blood in the streets” quote.
OK so let’s say an 18 yr old does forget that they have their gun on them. Unless they’re like “welp, I guess today’s the day that I start shooting everyone”, I don’t see the real problem.
I think that’s exactly what the anti-gun progs think will happen.
If they are that irresponsible at 18 they will be just as irresponsible at 21. It’s how you raise them.
I know I did a lot of growing up between 18 and 21. Every kid matures differently.
Sadly, the best we have been able to do is draw arbitrary lines beyond which people are considered “adults.” This is not an easy question.
So because you were too irresponsible to carry at 18 means everyone should suffer? Seems like a very SJW position.
Things are a lot less complicated if you are either an adult or a kid. Not some halfway creature, supposedly mature enough to annihilate city blocks until you leave what is arbitrarily deemed your “job”, then banned from carrying a .22 and having a sip of beer.
When I was going to school the student parking lots had trucks with rifles and shotguns in the rear windows.
Don’t recall any problems with same.
That shotgun that Eric’s holding in the picture. Was checking out one like it at a big 5 and the guy behind the counter assurred me that “It’ll do more damage than a regular 12 ga.”
I’m concerned that the legal ramifications of such an action are clearly addressed for those 18 years old who would exercise this. Many opportunities to negatively affect the rest of their life.
Many stupid things 18 year-olds do can negatively affect the rest of their lives. Babies come to mind.
But as for legal, let me check…
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free sate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Nope, I cannot find anything in that statement even remotely giving the government the authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, not even according to age.
They still do. Just because your or my straight forward interpretation of the Constitution says the government can’t do something doesn’t stop them from hitting you with a felony charge and sentence creating great difficulties for you going forward in life.
Compared to many people who comment on this website, Scalia was, and Thomas and Alito are raving left wing extremists.
You have a valid point, but I must question it by asking you, who are ‘The People’ in the context of what the founders wrote and intended?
In 1791, ‘The People’ were white males mature enough in age to perform military service and pay taxes. That excluded white males not yet of the ‘age of majority’ (let’s assume, ‘not big enough to carry a musket,’), white males who didn’t own ‘property’, and anybody who was NOT an adult white male taxpayer: blacks, Indians, women, and other livestock, for example.
If we maintain a strict interpretation of the ORIGINAL meaning of the 2nd Amendment, word for word, and of the others that are contemporary, and deny that any of them can be re-interpreted by subsequent jurists (such as interpreting the 1st Amendment right of free speech to include internet blogs and Emails, for example), then we’re stuck with the fact that the 2nd Amendment only applies to adult white male taxpayers, and only THEIR right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Clearly, it doesn’t–not now. Therefore, if we grant that the 2nd Amendment HAS to be interpreted in the light of history and modernity to allow anyone other than just adult white male taxpayers to keep and bear arms, ‘The People’ now being a tad more inclusive than that, we also have to accept that it must be amenable to other interpretive nuances and limitations. If it isn’t, then none of the others are.
No right in the Bill of Rights is absolute and ironclad; Each one comes with its own caveats and interpretations–even the 13th, which says that people CAN be put to involuntary servitude by a court upon conviction for certain crimes.
And here we all thought that slavery was UnConstitutional. . .
Since 1791, there have been amendments to the original ten enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and some of the words no longer mean what they once meant. If ‘The People’ does not mean today what it meant then, ‘infringed’ may very well not, either.
That’s why we have a Supreme Court.
John, you make an excellent, well reasoned point. I would object only in that the 14th Amendment is what changed “the people.” It was not just something the courts pulled from the ether. Additional amendments also further added people to the various protections of the Constitution. (Some things changed the citizenry and what that means, while some things changed what protections all persons held).
And additionally, you are correct in your understanding that the state of the law in this country holds that even the Constitution is not absolute. (As much as any of us may disagree with that).
18 year olds should also be allowed to buy liquor. If you are old enough to vote and old enough to die in the military you should be old enough to drink a beer and carry a gun.
Granted, I am all for changing the legal adult age to 25. Won’t see me crying over a bunch of 18 year olds losing their voting rights till they reach actual adulthood.
There’s a reason Utah does not allow those under 21 to buy liquor.
That reason is money, federal highway funds, to be exact. It’s not some universal moral imperative,
As I recall Utah makes it as difficult as possible for ANYBODY to buy liquor.
Yeah, they make it difficult.
About 15 years back, on my way home from Sacramento, my connecting flight was Salt Lake City.
I had an hour and half to kill, so I planted my butt at the airport bar and ordered a double Jack and Coke.
No dice. Bartender told me Utah alcohol laws meant no doubles, no two or more to one customer at a time, nothing but one drink at a time.
In contrast, I had just left Pacifica, Ca., where a few days earlier I bought a 750 of Jack at the Safeway supermarket just as easily as if I had bought a 2 liter Coke Classic (that I just so happened to buy at the same time as a mixer)…
Until we allowed the progtards to buy the votes of the utes the traditional age to vote in the US was 21. 18 was yet another dimwit idea of the “progressive” with all their marxist claptrap.
Except in the first election that 18 year olds were eligible to vote they voted the “wrong” wsy. They voted for Nixon.
Any age restriction is arbitrary. Why 1 and not 16? How about 14? There is no real rationale other than observation. I thing 18 and and graduation from high school or military status is a supportable standard.
Except, simply being 18 isn’t the standard for being in the military and going to war. You must actually be accepted into the military and you must actually complete your training.
Today, the military rejects about 80% of applicants. Of the remainder, only about 85% will make it through basic training. Being old enough to go to war, therefore, implies a lot more than just being 18 years old. You can’t compare that subgroup of 18 year old warriors to the overall population of 18 year olds out there.
The poor Utes of Utah (get it?).
There is one major problem Dee Rowland’s thinking and statement. Carrying in a school is not equivalent to his statement , “so many adult concealed carriers ‘forget’ and take their guns to the airport”. In Utah concealed carry is allowed in all public school, colleges and universities by anyone with a valid Concealed Firearms Permit. If they did lower the carry age to 18 it would be perfectly legal for a student with a CFP to carry on a public high school campus.
Excellent point. I knew Utah had campus carry, but I had thought it only applied to colleges. If it’s all schools, then the concern expressed in the quote above becomes moot real fast.
Concealed carry in public schools is already legal in Utah. ANYONE with a CFP can legally carry in a public school.
My teenage daughter once told us she had suicidal thoughts. Thought about using the thirty year old kitchen knives. I didn’t comment, but had just refilled a 30 day supply (90 pills) of Hydro codon due to my spouse’s recent back surgery.
Turns out she was writing a story on the problem of teenage “cutting” for the school newspaper. Not that I treated her problem lightly, but at the time, I do remember thinking her choice was rather strange.
I may not be able to remove guns from the house with someone having suicidal thoughts, but, at the very least, the ammo can be locked up or relocated.
I understand the emotional appeal to lock up the knives, firearms, and ammunition when a family member is suicidal. You do realize, however, that a suicidal person can just as easily drive a car into the pillar of a highway overpass at 100 m.p.h. for a guaranteed, instant death. Or they can grab some rope, tie one end around their neck, tie the other end around something substantial (like a tree branch), and jump from a height of just 10 feet for guaranteed, quick death.
Trying to eliminate access to suicide methods is a losing game of whack-a-mole. If a person is truly suicidal, someone needs to IMMEDIATELY commit them to a secured mental health facility and provide INTENSIVE treatment.
The best reason not to allow Carry to 18 year olds is that they are still impulsive and make many bad decisions. Teensgers are also bad drivers. Many states allow drivers licenses in stages (no night driving or driving with another teenager in the car until you are 18… etc). Firearms freedoms should be eased into to prevent impulsive bad decisions by immature individuals who will get our rights taken away in the future because politicians can use impulsive mistakes to justify bans. 21 is s good age for full firearms freedom
adolescent brains don’t fully develop til 25-28, especially the impulse control vs. consequence. That is why Marines are so effective.
I would really like to see your studies sited on your statements you make, sounds like liberals babbling anything they want because they know no one will ever call them on it, in other words a bunch of crap.
Having been on the non fun side of dealing with young Uncle Sam Misguided Children overseas on a USN NAS as base police in the wee hours of the morning I can attest that younger/junior ones were always a handful. But SOG would form them up in the cold drizzle of this fine base seemed to always have and allowed them to watch the northern lights for ah hour or so, in formation at parade rest. I would offer a warm seat in the cab of my patrol truck while we waited until they got their minds right. And I have highest respect for the USMC. Not saying my sailors were any better, LMAO, not even close, nor was I at that age. There is no one hard fast line that anyone can draw that fits everyone. BUT training on the importance of dealing with autos (cars/trucks not full auto firearms), firearms and reproductive organs should be mandatory in high school and a class on common sense would not hurt either. In VA they want to add to drivers ed a course of instruction on what to do and NOT to do when pulled over or dealing with a LEO. Some morons were saying it was an over reach. Not even close, I would suggest a ride along. It wasn’t till I on the sober on the job side did I see how annoying drunks really were. And real STUPID has no age limits high or low.
“BUT training on the importance of dealing with autos, firearms and reproductive organs should be mandatory in high school and a class on common sense would not hurt either.”
That’s where the focus needs to be. When I was in my mid-20’s even I would look at things like you’re talking about,shake my head and say “Kids these days”. Then I thought back to my experience in high school and I realized that other than myself and a few of my friends most of the people I went to school with didn’t have actual parents. They had older familiar relations that lived in the house with them but no parents.
Therein lies the problem. Young adults who’s first real experience with actual discipline and order comes when they enlist are pretty well guaranteed to have some problems adjusting to such a system. This system also demands a higher level of discipline, order and responsibility than most do specifically because the entire organization is based around the concept of killing other people and therefore deals with the tools to do so.
Vast swaths of the population have lifelong impulse control problems due to low I.Q. Their demographics are known. True, not every last member of that demographic will exhibit low I.Q. and poor impulse control. Then again, neither will every 18-20 year old make snap deadly decisions with a firearm.
So the question is, if it’s ok to restrict all 18-20 year olds based on impulse control deficiencies, then why not restrict all blacks of all ages for the same reason?
You are a disgusting moron.
What evidence do you have that 18 year-olds make impulsive decisions with respect to using lethal force in self-defense? Answer: none.
Whether or not you can use lethal force for self-defense is pretty cut-and-dry: either the other person is attacking you … or they are not. And if they are attacking you, either they are a credible, imminent threat of rape, great bodily harm, or death … or they are not.
I have yet to encounter an 18 year-old who is incapable of determining whether someone is attacking them. And I have yet to encounter an 18 year-old who is unable to distinguish between rough/harsh handling and rape/beating/murder.
I see no reason, based in fact, to tell an 18 year-old that they cannot carry an effective tool (such as a firearm) for self-defense.
Actually, there’s plenty of evidence that teenagers, especially teenage males, have poor impulse control. It’s borne out by accident and crime statistics, and it’s cross-cultural. Risk taking is part of the behavior pattern for a very large proportion of young men all over the world.
“The best reason not to allow Carry to 18 year olds is that they are still impulsive and make many bad decisions.”
See my comment above in re Second Amendment.
If (assuming) you deny Second Amendment protected RKBA to anyone just because they are not yet 21 years old, who is misusing all the firearms now?
Answer, for the most part, teenage gang-bangers.
“Teensgers[sic] are also bad drivers.”
An irrelevant statement. A “red herring” if you will.
There is a statistical correlation between young age and automobile accidents no doubt. However, that’s a correlation that has no evidence of that it relates to firearms or responsibility. Your statement assumes that bad driving is a result of poor discipline and impulsive behavior due to age when there is no evidence to support this. Said poor driving could just as easily be attributed to a lack of experience in dynamic and fast paced situations such as driving.
Wow, you must be an artist, to be able to paint with such a broad brush.
“…The best reason not to allow Carry to 18 year olds is that they are still impulsive and make many bad decisions.”
I mean nope to your idea. Being impulsive is not a valid enough reason to hold rights back from an individual. You have to pick an age and stick with it. You can’t call someone an adult but still withhold rights because they aren’t adult enough yet…. You are an adult who has reached the age of majority, or you aren’t an adult yet. It truly is a binary situation, you are or you aren’t.
Besides, have you never heard the adage that Wisdom comes from experience and experience comes from bad decisions.
Dee Rowland is an active participant in the gun control lobby,
“My continuing volunteer activities include chairing the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, acting as Treasurer of Utah Interfaith Power and Light, serving on the Advisory Board of the Healthy Environment Alliance (HEAL), as well as the boards of the Utah Workforce Services Advisory Council, Holy Cross Ministries, and the Tanner Center for Nonviolent Human Rights Advocacy.”
Age limitations when it comes to physical development mostly make sense. Age limitations when it comes to emotional/social/mental maturity are mostly bullshit. We all know the adult and responsible 15 year old and we all know the 40 year old jackass who shouldn’t be trusted with the care of a potted plant.
Amen. Those under 18 are not immune from attack either. Anyone, of any age, who can’t be trusted with tools – including guns – needs a keeper or a padded room. Period.
When I was a child, I was taught one of the most valuable lessons to be learned by anyone.
Do NOT go stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things… Be responsible for yourself, and stay away from people who are not. Never initiate force against anyone.
I made it through high school and college without too much “stupid.” The only way to learn good judgment is, generally, to survive a lot of bad judgment. And learn from it. Adults are those who can and will be totally responsible for themselves, support themselves and live with the consequences of their actions and choices. A great many people of all ages never come close to it.
For the most part I think this is a gimmick gun. However, it is highly concealable, legal, and a gun. You can hit w/ it just not nearly as well as if you had a stock. You don’t need to be 21 to own it.
there is a huge range of responsability here. I feel that if they are still in school(supported by family), they are still monors. allowing them adult status here is inviting troubles they don’t need, like signing up for credit.
On the other hand, an 18 or 19 yo that has left the nest and has a job(and is maybe starting a family) is an adult.
I feel that between 18-25, they should send in a contract to register as an adult. This would be a rubber stamped paper. Believe me, I have known many people over 25 that were still children, they lived at home and depended on parents for everything – that is not an adult.
See my comment above regarding the Second Amendment.
All of these arguments are no more convincing than the argument that the government is capable, trustworthy, or Constitutionally authorized to determine you mental health status and use that determination to restrict your Second Amendment protected RKBA.
Being a teenager is not a mental health issue. Being a stupid teenager might be. Either way, the government has no authority to infringe on the RKBA.
High schoolers clearly can’t be trusted with guns; they’re just kids! Neither can college students, since they spend all their time drunk. Besides everyone knows your brain isn’t developed until you’re 26 or so…let’s say 28 to account for late bloomers.
Plus, we all know that the elderly shouldn’t have guns…if you can’t get a license to drive a car, why should you have a gun? Guns require instantaneous response so you can quick draw and shoot the 18 snipers off the warehouse roof with your .32 (because movies never lie), and everyone knows your physical abilities start to roll off in your mid 30s.
Now, men commit the vast majority of crime, so they’re right out. Plus, blacks and Hispanics have higher than average crime rates, so they’re out too. And whites are all racist, so no guns for them. Native Americans can’t hold their liquor. Asians are OK…but not Japanese or Chinese because world domination and communism.
Now, we don’t want people to have guns in dangerous areas, because clearly they will just add to the problem. So that rules out all the big urban states, and the poor states, and the border states, and the drug dealing states.
I therefore conclude that all female Tibetans between the ages of 28 and 33 living in rural Vermont may own guns. Everyone else is SOL.
Freedom is for everyone, or no one. Make your choice.
“Future non-gunowner says:”
Curious, what’s stopping you from being a non-gunowner right *now*?
Sell it, give it away, or crush it with a sledgehammer…
Raising the legal age for things is precisely the problem. The perfect way to produce a society full of clueless, ignorant, childish adults (with all due respect to the Hillary, Donald, and Bernie voters) is to make it illegal for them to grow up. Lawn mowing and lemonade stands are illegal now. My state’s only public range won’t let a kid shoot until age 14. They spend 12 years of their lives in government day prisons being told that they have to ask permission to even go to the bathroom. What do we expect? If 18 year-olds are immature, it’s because it’s all they’ve been taught to be. Raising minimum ages for things is only going to make things worse.
“The best parents prepare their children for the path, not the path for their children.” – Ann Landers
I’d give an 18 year old a gun as easily as I’d give a 16 year old a car.
Meaning that if you can put a kid behind the wheel of a car then you should have no problem with and adult having a gun.
In Texas, my eighteen year old can purchase a rifle, just not a handgun. As a friend said “They both shoot bullets.”
In Texas, your 18 year old certainly may legally purchase not only a rifle, but a handgun, too (assuming they aren’t otherwise a prohibited possessor).
State law forbids selling, transferring, giving, etc. a firearm, any firearm to someone under age 18. Obvious exceptions exist for firearms provided by parents, for sporting purposes, and others.
Texas state law does not differentiate between long guns or handguns in this regard. Texas will even issue a license to carry to 18 year olds, under certain conditions.
What you’re thinking of is federal law, which prohibits a federal firearms licensee (FFL) from selling a handgun to anyone under age 21, although they may sell long guns to 18 year olds. That’s federal law and applies everywhere, not just Texas.
If your 18 year old in Texas wants a handgun, then they may legally purchase one from someone in Texas who is not an FFL.
Tell me testosterone never overcame common sense when you were 18. When jocks get into steroid rage, the steroid in question is testosterone. Testosterone is stronger than common sense.
Michigan lowered the voting and drinking age to 18 during the Vietnam war protest era. Old enough to fight, old enough to vote. After way too many drunk junior jocks got waxed by vastly larger more sober adults, soaring drunk driver deaths, and the inevitable result of teen queens interacting with smooth talking older dudes, they learned their lesson and raised the age of decreed maturity back to 21.
The regrettable truth is, it took me a few more years to achieve actual maturity. Testosterone and triggers are a bad combination.
From my experience in military law enforcement, those in the 18 to 24 range do stupid things more often than those 25+. I observed that the main reason that those between 18 and 24 have more incidents of stupidity is alcohol. But, I never felt unsafe around properly trained military members carrying firearms at any age as long as they were sober.
Constitutional concerns aside, I am on the fence on CCW age restrictions, though. But, as long as our country has screwy laws, such as “1000 feet from school” laws, knowing that a CCW is the only way to protect yourself from some of those screwy laws, I say that we need to lower the age limit.
Access to guns? The idiot writer knows that at 18 you can buy a rifle or a shotgun right? There is also something about being able to own, but not purchase a pistol at 18. I think it is so you can have one given to you by a parent or something.
Anyway… A rifle or shotgun will kill you as dead as a pistol so getting your concealed carry at 18 really sounds like it won’t change that.
At 18 you had better be ready for all the liberty that this country has to offer. We can’t keep coddling our youth and at the same time wonder why there aren’t any adults around anymore. Treat them how you want them to act. Treat them like, and hold them accountable like you would an adult. That’s how you make an adult out of what was a potential special snowflake.
I would add to all of this that gun handling and gun law classes should be a required course for graduation from high schools. Not for gun ownership, but just as a general education requirement. Every student, probably in the beginning of their Senior year when most will soon be or already are 18 years old.
“I would add to all of this that gun handling and gun law classes should be a required course for graduation from high schools.”
Real, actual, tangible. ‘gun safety’.
I sure hope that idea is being presented to the Trump admin. through that gun council John Boch. is on….
The gun safety part should start much younger. I remember a bunch of gun safety “educational messages” from Saturday morning cartoons. These were along the lines of “if you find a gun, tell an adult.” Gun handling could be done in middle school. We were given deadly weapons in middle school, and no one even tried to hurt someone.
How many 18 year olds (and younger) served with bravery and valor in our military? These people don’t mind when they are carrying weapons in defense of their foreign and domestic policy.
I had no idea that the drinking age was related to youthful forgetfulness. Kids have a tendency to buy a bottle of Jack and forget they have it, take it to school and a party breaks out?
Jokes aside, in the Dark Ages (1998) kids legally brought firearms to my school, as they had for over a century and not due to forgetfulness, and… nothing happened!
Young women are prime targets for rapists and serial killers (doh!). Hence a young carry age is preferable. Violent crime trumps all other concerns here. Young people, if it’s not legal to carry, carry anyhow. Your life won’t be protected by anyone other than yourself. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Imagine getting caught without a gun by a serial killer or violent rapist. Get a gun. Carry it on your body. All the time.
What it come down to is that if you cant trust your children to responsibly exercise ALL of their rights as an adult it speaks to how they were trained. So the question is what are you going to do to make it work. Delaying their rights isn’t a solution.
The only plausible reason I can think of too keep the carry age at 21 is generally crimes before 18 get swept away, but few of the people with juvenile records will reach 21 without some offense that will prohibit them from carrying a gun. However, the answer to this is to take away their permit once they have offended. (And in this case we have to completely ignore the possible unconstitutionality of loss of gun right for felons, as well as the carry permitting system of course)
We allow 18-year-olds to vote.
Ask any lib, and they will tell you that this last election will be the ruin of America.
So, obviously, voting is much more dangerous than owning a gun.
Yet the libs scream bloody murder at any rule forcing people to prove they are eligible to vote.
Why is that?
Because that’s lib logic: if they want it, it’s good. If they don’t want it, it’s bad.
Real simple; everything is black and white. (OMG, now I’m a RACIST!)
They should lower it to zero. Once you age gate a right it has become a privilege.
Socialist progessives have always supported teen sex and out of wedlock births. But not guns for law abiding children????
That is how you control people. The welfare system replaces the traditional family. No guns for you, but you do get lots of free stuff.
I should add if you lower the age to 18 for a hand gun and a concealed carry permit. then you can make a case for firearms safety training in public schools using real guns. Perhaps a field trip to a local range.
In 1956 they had real hand guns in school for educating kids in gun safety.
I would guess access to liquor for those under 21 has to do with federal highway funding more than any idea of maturity by the state.
Go to school, join the military, carry a gun if you wish, buy a beer, get persecuted as an adult – it should all be the same age. When going to certain parts of town, I was mandated by my father (I may have been 18, but I respected him and knew which side my bread was buttered on) to have a loaded .45 with me. This wasn’t a stretch as he’d also mandated a loaded gun be at hand when I was 12 when there was an escaped convict in our part of town and the practice just stuck. Old enough to be at home alone, old enough to have to defend one’s self. How heads would spin these days! Maturity ages may have risen, but kids don’t get enough credit for understanding life and death.