Should we have gun control?

Gun ownership should be limited to those over 21

Question: Should we have gun control?
Position1 of 3›: Gun ownership should be controlled
Argument1 of 6›: Gun ownership should be limited to those over 21

Only those over the age of 21 should be permitted to own a firearm.

The argument

The minimum age of all gun ownership should be increased to 21 and all loopholes that allow 18-year-olds to obtain weapons should be closed. Teenagers' brains are not yet fully developed, and they do not have the mental capacity or impulse control to own guns. Teenagers brains are not fully developed and have difficulty in fully evaluating risk. Keeping guns out of the hands of teenagers may go some way towards reducing gun deaths. It could help prevent school shootings and make schools in the United States a safer place. There is also evidence to suggest that it could reduce the rate of suicide.

Context

Current federal law sets the minimum age of handguns to 21, but 18-year-olds can buy assault-style weapons like AR15s. There are also loopholes which allow 18-year-olds to purchase handguns at a gun show or from private collectors. They can also legally receive them as a gift from a parent or guardian.

Premises

[P1]Teenagers' brains are not fully developed, leaving them with poor impulse control and impaired risk evaluation. [P2] People who lack the mental capacity to evaluate risk and control impulses should not have access to firearms. [P3] Raising the minimum gun ownership age to 21 and closing loopholes would reduce school shootings, gun deaths, and suicides among this group. [C] Therefore, gun ownership should be limited to those over 21.

Counter-arguments

Setting the legal age of procurement at 21 won't stop school shootings or mass killings. The average age of a mass shooter in the United States is 34. As the 18-21 demographic is not the biggest culprit in mass shootings, there is no reason to limit their gun rights. Nor are they the biggest culprits in gun-related homicide cases. 18-21-year-olds commit far fewer firearm offences than the 20-24 demographic. Raising the minimum age of firearm ownership to 21 doesn't make any empirical sense. It is just an arbitrary age introduced by people who want to take guns away. If anything, taking guns away from the 18-21 demographic leaves one of the most vulnerable segments of the population without protection. They are not the biggest gun offenders but are the biggest victims of gun-related crimes and violent crime more generally. This demographic needs guns for protection more than any other age group.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The 18-21 demographic is not the most dangerous gun-owning demographic. A rise in the minimum age for gun ownership would be unfair. They are actually the biggest targets of violent crime. Therefore, they need guns as protection more than any other age group.

Framing

- Older people are more likely to make good decisions.