Gun ownership should be limited to those over 21

The argument

The proposal is stated at the outset and is narrower than a general restriction: 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. The second half matters as much as the first, since an age limit that can be worked around by another route of purchase changes who buys from whom rather than who ends up armed. The justification offered is developmental. Teenagers' brains are not yet fully developed, and on this account they do not have the mental capacity or impulse control to own guns, and have difficulty in fully evaluating risk. Those two deficits bear on firearms in different ways. Impaired impulse control matters because a gun converts a momentary intention into an irreversible act faster than any other object ordinarily to hand, leaving no interval in which the impulse might pass. Impaired risk evaluation matters because safe ownership consists almost entirely of judging risk correctly in advance — how a weapon is stored, when it is carried, and which situations it should be kept out of altogether. The expected benefits follow from withholding access during the years in which those capacities are still forming. 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, since the age group in question is the one with routine access to school premises. There is also evidence to suggest that it could reduce the rate of suicide — an outcome that turns on availability as much as on intent, because the method available is often what determines whether an impulse that would otherwise have passed proves fatal.

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

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.

Further reading

Webster, Daniel W. “Association Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws and Youth Suicides.” JAMA, vol. 292, no. 5, 2004, pp. 594–601. Crossref, doi:10.1001/jama.292.5.594.