aw that and was thing how it integrates on some modern gun control discussion:
Once again this raised a question I've had for decades. How do we Define "Adult"? My default description is a person who is capable of informed consent, and has the rights and responsibilities as an autonomous person. Or more simply, a person who is not the dependent of or subordinate to the will of* another. My philosophy is that an adult, barring specific individual limitations**, should have freedoms equal to all other adults. People being equal under the law.
*Like with power of attorney. Some people are unable to manage their own affairs and have another person with a power to make decisions for them. **Like being a convicted felon, a limitation placed by due process onto a person specifically because of evidence or actions. As opposed to a restriction placed on a person because they are a member of a class of people.
The question I pose is this:
Is a theory of progressive acquisition of rights and responsibilities discriminatory against the young?
If the young are not capable of choosing alcohol or nicotine for themselves fairly, can they be trusted with the vote, a car, sex/marriage, a job, enlistment in the military or a gun?
If 18 it too young for a person to be an adult, what is the correct age? I like 20, because it's round. But I've heard that the brain doesn't fully mature until 25.
What about parents responsibility for these 18-25 young adults? Teenagers already chafe at their restraints, adding up to 7 years onto that would be a significant social change.
What rights should all people have, regardless of age? Is there an age where we should start removing rights?
Is there another system that might be better? In a series of libertarian books I read, you became an adult by taking an oath of adulthood. Effectively signing a EULA with the government that you are a competent person who will be held responsible for their actions. Anyone could take the oath at any time that they could read and repeat it. I don't think that's the right answer, but it's a different answer.
But What About Guns?
The current federal law is that you have to be 21 to buy any gun BUT there is an exception for rifles and shotguns to be available to people 18 and up. To enact a 21+ law nationwide, all they have to do is remove the exception. Over the course of 3 years everyone who bought a gun under the exemption would age into the main group. How much of a burden is that? Is it a fair burden to put on people 18-21?
The video talks about the significant cost of life and limb that lower drinking ages had. I've heard that as we raise the legal age for nicotine and alcohol, fewer people start using these drugs and thus less harm overall is caused. The harm of guns is both internal like drugs (in their use in suicide) and external like drunk driving (in their use in crimes). Guns are unlike drugs in that they are not consumed in use. A gun is a durable good with a relatively higher up-front cost. This cost limits their availability to people starting their lives (Buy a shotgun, or dinners for a month?) But not to people who are intent on self-destruction (I can't make my rent if I buy this gun, but I'm going to die shooting up some place, so it doesn't matter).
As I've stated previously, my basis for ownership of guns is self-defense. Under that premise I feel that all adults should be equal. If you are trusted as a member of society; if you haven't had your rights restricted because you've proven yourself to be dangerous, and if you are not the dependent of another*, you should be able to own effective tools of self-defense. The law and general ethics show that no one else is responsible for your defense. The age question is part of the greater questions of "Are guns too dangerous to be allowed in society?" and "Is the cost of guns greater than their benefit?" If guns are allowable under those questions it devolves to, "How can we tell when is a person is responsible enough to be trusted with choices that affect the health and well-being of themselves and others?"