People between 16 and 24 make up 16 percent of the population but commit HALF of all murders, most with guns. Researchers have long known that key parts of the brain that regulate dangerous behaviors do not fully develop until about age 25. Plenty of people over 25 do commit gun crimes, of course, along with all sorts of additional dangerous behaviors. But it's tough to overlook the large number of young offenders.
Car insurance and the ability to rent a car are both tied to turning 25 marking a distinct change in behavior among young people. Insurance rates are quite high for young drivers, based on actuarial tables. There are exceptions, of course, and people CAN rent a car when younger than 25, but there are some hoops to jump through, at least.
How would young people feel about a federal law limiting most gun ownership until after 25? Let's assume that an exception for gun ownership might be created, say, for hunting rifles.
I recall quite passionate arguments that contrasted being forced (by the military draft) at 18 to serve in the military with laws that did not allow those young soldiers and sailors to drink, or even vote, until 21. That seeming hypocrisy led to lowering of age limits from time to time, particularly for voting, but we have seen age limits changed both up and down in individual states for various reasons.
Florida raised the minimum age for gun ownership from 18 to 21 after the Parkland massacre, for instance. And it happened in just a few months.
The legal drinking age was lowered to 18 near the end of the Vietnam War, then adjusted to 19 for a time and finally returned to 21, where it remains.
But 21 is basically a random age to settle on for qualifying for almost anything. Should 25 become the new 21?
Hey, it's worth a discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment