During an intriguing video discussion between John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, and Frank Miniter, editor-in-chief of NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom Magazine, both men dissected the pipe dream by gun banners to raise the legal age for gun ownership to 21. They questioned the basis of the arguments for the increase and noted the implications for the Second Amendment.
Lott highlighted the fact that the freedom-haters calling for raising the legal age for a gun purchase frequently point to the “relatively high crime rates committed by 18, 19, and 20-year-olds.”
However, he argued that the proposed laws ignore a crucial distinction of the difference between criminals/gang bangers and law-abiding 18 to 20 olds that subject themselves to government background checks.
“The type of people who you’re stopping now[by raising the age], because you’re not allowing them to go through the background check, they’re not the same as the other ones who aren’t going through a background check,” Lott noted, suggesting that the proposed law might be misdirected.
The researcher further delved into the matter, offering compelling data from Nevada, Texas, and Michigan [embeded below].
That data showed 18, 19, and 20-year-old concealed carry permit holders, who undergo background checks, actually have lower rates of firearms convictions than people who are 21 and older.
Lott pointed out that the analysis of crime rates should not be generalized for all individuals in an age group, as the proposed law would affect only those eligible for gun purchases under the current rules.
Lott also drew attention to the historical precedents of firearm legislation, indicating that the proposed age limit could face legal challenges in light of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. He noted that during the late 18th and 19th centuries, the laws actually mandated young adults of certain age groups to own a rifle, a stark contrast to today’s calls for increased age restrictions.
Self-Defense & Running Out The Clock
Another point of discussion was the potential effect of the proposed changes on individuals who may need a firearm for self-defense. “They’re victims of crime too,” Lott stated, mentioning the potential dangers faced by 20-year-old women who may be stalked or threatened. According to him, these individuals might be left defenseless if they can’t legally purchase a firearm or are forced to wait, as in the tragic case of New Jersey’s Carol Bowne.
The potential for legal challenges to the proposed age increase was also explored, with Lott commenting on the varying perspectives of the Supreme Court justices, hinting at the potential for a shift in the court’s view on the Second Amendment due to the advancing ages of Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito.
During the conversation, Miniter reiterated the importance of considering the Heller and McDonald decisions, two key Supreme Court rulings that upheld the individual’s right to bear arms. He expressed concern about the possibility of a shift in the court’s composition that could lead to a reversal of these landmark decisions.
Both Lott and Miniter indicated that the debate around increasing the legal age for gun ownership creates a complex interplay of individual rights, crime prevention, and legal interpretation.
It seems the easiest solution for this “fix” in search of a problem is to KISS[keep it simple stupid] and stick with the original “right to keep and bear arms, shall Not Be infringed” for adults 18 and older.
Concealed Carry Revocation Rates by Age
By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: This article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.
And yet the wacko libs think that third graders are old enough to chop off body parts! Liberal logic is an oxymoron.
IiberaI Iogic is satanic.
it would be more harmful to lower the voting age to 16 as many progressives want to do than let law-abiding 18-21 yo ADULTS possess weapons, concealed or open.
facts do not matter to progressives, only their desires do. they also do not possess any common sense (pick a subject). they are immoral and evil.
The biggest reason 18 year olds can vote is because of an anti-establishment song from the 1960’s,
“you’re old enough to kill but not for votin”
And that required a Constitutional amendment, which BTW is how it is supposed to be done in the United States.
Then again, in todays society you would have so many variables of 18 year olds. 1) Would join the Marines, 2) would be a crack dealer, 3) Would be an entitled high school drop-out living in mom’s basement, 4) Would be a college kid, 5) Would be a drug addict or alcoholic… This country has done pretty damn good with the salt-of-the-earth lifestyles that were raised on duty and responsibilities at very young ages. All the way up to 1913 when they created the federal reserve, the IRS and then the 1932 NFA all because some gangsters. Of course during… Read more »
Sergeant Martin was 15 years old when he joined to help found this country. The worlds “eighteen” and “adult” are not present in the Second Amendment.
And the education system back then actually matured young boys faster. But today? Just look at some of them out and about in public at the age of 35. They are still little kids in 35 year old bodies. Maturity has gone down the toilet with the lousy 10th plank communist manifesto government school cisterns.
That and the divorce/custody courts whereas mothers initiate divorce at 80% of the time and gain custody 90% of the time. Don’t take my word, research the statistics.
I wonder if all those gang bangers that look like they aren’t much older than 12 with Glock switches went through back ground checks. Do you suppose? And they put videos’ up on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LeM1tSRXnPI I have a sneaking suspicion that this is “illegal”. That isn’t Colion Noir shooting that.
Did you know that if you are purchasing a Glock Switch for an Airsoft Glock that it is okay?
Liberal can’t be equated with logic. They thrive on emotional responses to complicated issues. Reason, logic and common sense are tossed under the bus by these government school taught idiots. They want to play a game of “Let’s Pretend” because they are irresponsible themselves. They believe that if they had a firearm at a younger age that they would use it in a negative manner so they project that image on the rest of society.
I’m in
WTF is wrong with this country, has it lost its ever loven mind it’s, lost it’s way, and what it founded on. There are chicks with dick’s making terroristic threats (with firearms) all over social media platforms. So they can play women sports, and use the bathroom and shower with our actual female daughters, and it get over looked and ignored. then when it comes to 18-to 21 year olds, they can join in the military “actually be trained” to use fully automatic military style weapons/firearms, and chance giving up their lives for our country, Then there is young women… Read more »
Join me on the Texas border.
Okay, let’s use this logic for a minute. 18 to 21 year olds commit a higher number of crimes. Ok, blacks are 13 percent of the population, yet commit 47 percent of murders. Do they want to ban blacks from owning guns?
But what are the ages of the blacks in that / those statistics? Haven’t there been findings of ages as low as 12 in the urban gangbanger category?
Ban banners!
Will they raise the age to 21 to join the armed forces?