[removed]
The federal age to buy a handgun is 21. Long guns at 18. The death toll from drunken teen drivers has been high. From teen shooters, it's been low.
And the drinking age used to be 18.
South Dakota and Wyoming didn't raise it to 21 until 1988.
And my friends and I would drive to WY and get hammered drunk, load up the trunk, and drive home. Yes, we were stupid.
I remember going to Colorado when I was 18 and being able to drink 3.2 beer in restaurants. In the eighties.
After South Dakota and Mrs. Dole landed in the Supreme Court over it.
You can join the military at 18 but can’t drink or smoke. Makes no sense except imperial sense
People said the same thing during Vietnam so they lowered the drinking age to 18. Drunk driving fatalities rose significantly so they raised it to 21 again.
So the rationale is sound? Brain to undeveloped to drink, but just right for Uncle Sam to send to their death
The rationale is that one issue is a public safety issue and the other is a national defense issue.
Wonder if that's more the fault of the US Driving tests ranging from "None whatsoever" to "Extremely simple" resulting in really shit drivers than any kind of pattern where anyone below 21 doesn't comprehend drink driving.
100%. Germans can drink at 14 and take part in traffic at 15. Driving at 17. No speed limit on most of the Autobahn and the USA still has a higer rate of car crashes per capita. Getting a license here takes a lot of time and thousands of euros
Better roads and much better public transit.
I took my drivers test very seriously and I am a professional drunk driver. US test worked great!
You think there is a correlation between drunk driving fatalities and drivers license tests?
Id argue that it probably has a weak correlation. If you're putting people behind the wheel who probably shouldn't be there anyway you're going to see higher deaths by bad driving. Now give them a drink and they make silly decisions on top of that.
Well, yeah, American driving tests don’t teach people how to drive drunk so you got me there.
Yep. I think US Drivers are worse because they don't need to learn to as high a standard. That is going to impact all kinds of driving, even drink driving.
It makes sense, if people don’t learn how dangerous drunk driving is they are more likely to drink and drive. The course that is made for turning people into, ideally, safe drivers should teach people about to dangers of intoxicated driving.
I’m not saying that the spike in dui fatalities during Vietnam was caused by this, but it’s undeniably a factor when discussing the dui issue as a whole.
Doesnt that depend if you are 18, from the US and say go to Germany or the middle east where drinking age is lower? I mean, legal or not, kids are going to drink if they want to drink. Kids are going to get a gun if they want a gun. I could go on and on about gang violence and how access to weapons nothing. Join a gang, get a gun.
Ok?
you're welcome
Username checks out?
thanks to reddit as I have no idea how to change it, lol so I just ran with it
Back in the 90's at our local E-Club on base, they didn't enforce the drinking age and let all active duty folks drink if you kept your composure. I hear it's gotten much more strict now.
It’s all the same shit in the long run. All 3 can kill you
I can't say much about smoking, but there's no chance you will kill someone in a traffic accident just because you happen to join the army.
Driving is a need for most of the country.
Gun ownership is not. Yes, it's a right, and I support it, but I would also support if the age were raised.
However, that isn't what we are discussing, and most teen shooters are presumably not legally obtaining a gun.
Some dumbass is about to tell you about the 0.000001% of American teens who NEED guns to kill wild hogs or whatever in backwater shitville population 80.
I own a lot of guns but I have met so many gun owners who insist they need two on them at all times for protection when the only conflicts they have ever been in they started and would not legally be permitted to use deadly force during.
It's absolutely a need.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Thomas Jefferson
It's not an optional thing, it's a civic duty.
I guess 60% of the US isn't doing their civic duty.
This is a letter. It is not part of the constitution. If you would like to frame it as part of the constitution, you will find some limitations to this.
It's not in the Constitution but it's in federal law as well as most, maybe all state laws.
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
It hasn't been invoked, but it's there in the law. It's technically still a civic duty to be well versed in arms, federally if you are young and male, some states have extended it to women as well.
It’s not a need. Only a third Americans own a gun. Most of us live our lives unarmed without negative consequences. We don’t live in a paranoid fog.
Those people Jefferson were referring to were while men as he owned hundreds of slaves. I doubt he believed the right to bear arms extended to the black people he considered no different than farm animals. Maybe we shouldn’t use the words of our founding fathers when it comes to the rights of the people.
Jefferson was also more on the unrestricted side of the right to bear arms. Like he didn't see any issues with private individuals owning entire warships.
Personally, I enjoy the Swiss approach - highly encouraged, part of their culture and all that, and very highly regulated.
Sounds like a country setting itself for civil war.
Don't give us a quote from someone that's been dead for nearly 200 years and lived in a very different time. Why exactly does the average American need to own a gun in the modern day, much less "be armed at all times"?
Because it's a civic duty, designed to preserve the rule of the people. Nothing has changed with regard to that. Our leaders were supposed to be afraid.
Do you have data on teen shooters? I was curious, but I can't find that data. I can only find data on teen victims, not teen gun weilders.
Best data with a cursory search appears to be about 1600 deaths caused by teen DUIs per year.
Yeah also rifles are occasionally required for various occupations/lifestyles. If you live in especially rural areas of the country, if you're unarmed outside of town you can still be in danger from the wildlife, thus a compelling reason to allow some firearms at 18 in some areas. Certain groups use that to fight against any kind of regulations nationally though and it's a mess.
Well....comparatively low sure.
Alcohol kills far more people
Guns are a weapon, and alcohol is a drug. They are two different things should be evaluated separately.
The Federal government told the states that if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21, all their grants to build highways would be cut off. I'm kind of surprised the "states rights" and "no more federal regulations" lobbies haven't tried to reverse that.
A gun is a tool. If you are taught how to use it correctly it’s very safe. A drunk teen is not safe in any way, shape, or form.
This, and in my opinion before being able to purchase a gun classes should be taken in regards to maintaining them and safety
And voting too?
Wym?
Should classes be required to vote?
Also, I agree with your point, I think that public schools should provide firearm safety classes.
In my opinion yes and it should be done in school but without bias none leaning either way which is what usually happens IMO
Voting inarguably is dangerous in the wrong hands, so if you need to pass a test in order to exercise your second ammendment rights you should be okay with requiring people to pass a test to vote, right?
Right
In other words, guns should require some form of education?
A drunk teen sitting somewhere safe is safe, much like a gun. A drunk teen is no less safe than a drunk 20-something given similar experience.
Guns definitely should require education.
Someone drinking in moderation at 18 can absolutely be safe lol.
I guess you could argue minor physical damage but if that’s your issue a lot more should be restricted from kids lol.
Source: almost the entire fucking world
Unfortunately the trend in America - at least/ especially on reddit and social media is to infantalize people. Probably cheer for the age of majority being changed to 25 because "that's when your brain is fully developed".
Yeah only unlimited microplastics and doom scrolling all day while your brain is developing.
A beer though! Are you trying to kill children?
If you are taught to drink responsibly alcohol can also be perfectly safe.
No
Guns don't impair your decision-making. or inhibit your development.
Guns don't inhibit your development with one notable exception.
Acute lead poisoning doesn't count...
And it's a bitch.
When I read up on american gun-toting weirdos, I'm not sure I agree with you. They seem to be developmentally stunted and have very poor decision-making skills. Like wearing an AR15 on your back to a starbucks isn't something a mentally stable person would do.
The majority of gun owners don't like the weirdo that wears an ar15 on their back to Starbucks either.
I’ve seen more cops in the past month than I have open carry firearms. Ever, most don’t open carry. It’s stupid and invites problems.
First of all, that's not remotely the norm. I've seen 1 person in my life who was open carrying like that. Secondly, that's a case of them already being mentally unstable, not the gun causing it.
AR15 on your back to a starbucks isn't something a mentally stable person would do.
People do that to demonstrate that someone carrying a gun is not some inherent threat, and to normalize the idea. It's a political statement, not some feeling that they need to do it.
It's not really any different from a pride parade being openly and flamboyantly gay in order to normalize the concept.
The public doesn’t know them from Adam. Just because I see one person carrying without blasting people doesn’t make me assume the next guy won’t either.
Most of these dudes just think they look like Billy Badass with some iron on their hip. They're compensating for inadequacy in other areas.
Open carry is objectively dumb for protection. If you're going to carry at all, concealed carry is better,
Being flamboyantly gay can't kill anyone. A mishandled gun or gun handled in a fit of anger can. I've seen too many people fly off the handle in public to want to normalize the idea of everyone carrying guns.
except a pride parade isn’t normalizing the idea of “i have the power to kill you where you stand”. it’s intimidation.
That's the most insane take I've read in a long while. Enough reddit for today.
It's not some "insane take" it's literally why they do it.
https://www.usacarry.com/pros-cons-open-carry-demonstrations/
Here's an article from a gun organization debating whether such "in your face" tactics are useful or not.
Agreed.
I keep mine off my back and in my hand in town.
The gun didn't cause that. They were already stupid before they bought the gun.
Fox news , church, and mama drinking while pregnant are most likely causes.
Absolutely no clue. Come to Europe where you can drink at 18 and never own a gun. Okay, never is exagerated. But it's very hard and unusual to get a license for owning a gun.
Fatal car accidents and car accidents in general. Raise the drinking age to 21, you have a bunch of 18 year olds who are sneaking alcohol. At 18, you have a bunch of 16 year olds. They're at parties with alcohol just easily purchased by the seniors, they drink, and then being 16...they drive off. There's a big difference in maturity between 16 and 18, 19, 20. Raising the legal drinking minimum reduced car accidents by a lot, because it reduced the number of new and inexperienced drivers who were drinking because, well, 16 year olds are not known for really solid, mature logic skills and civic responsibility.
countries that aren't as car-based, where a teenager is likely to be driving every single day, are fine with lower drinking ages. Here, with car culture being what it is? Anything that keeps alcohol away from kids in their mid-teens (well, reduces the convenience and easy easy accessibility) will help a lot. And a 21+ year old is usually going to be smarter about which teens they are buying for, than an 18 year old who wants to date that hot 16 year old.....
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2825167/
(btw, banning High schools from starting before 8:30 am ALSO has an effect on car accident rates!!!)
It's not about logic or good sense. The people who wrote the constitution were just really adamant that guns should be a right. Since they agreed on it hundreds of years ago, it's almost impossible to undo.
Also we like to be able to recruit soldiers young so we can abuse their alcohol free bodies to give “freedom” to underdeveloped nations
Every supreme court decision regarding the 2nd amendment until District of Columbia vs Heller in 2008 ruled that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to arm a militia, not to have guns for personal protection or use. Over 200 years of precedence overturned by a partisan court, and now we act like it has always been that way.
It used to be 18 to drink. Guess how well that turned out. And federal age to own a gun is 21 unless it's a shotgun / rifle (presumably for hunting)
They shouldn't be trusted to vote or buy guns until 21. Our laws are inconsistent
As a Canadian, it makes sense if you think about how hunting works in many communities. An 18yo who's been going on regular hunting trips with his dad for 4-6 years with his family is probably fine to buy a hunting rifle if he wants one.
IMO the drinking age should be 18, and I agree that the fact that it isn't is problematic. A major issue with most of these kinds of laws is that there is no viable legal route to challenge them. It costs an arm and a leg, in addition to a ton of time, stress, and energy, and by the time you end up before the Court of Appeal the case is usually moot.
There are studies that have shown that alcohol can cause developmental issues in people under the age of 25. Frankly, I don't think this is enough to restrict an adult's freedom, but there is some factual basis for restricting drinking for people under 21.
18 year old's can also:
It's really nonsensical when you think about it.
Honestly, because when you are 18 your brain isn't finished developing. Handling a gun has more to do with maturity and responsibility; not necessarily brain development.
Because more teens were killing themselves drinking and driving, then killing each other with guns.
Because almost every single teen drives and the percentage that have guns is quite low.
Because one of them specifically impairs your judgement.
The question isn’t stupid, but the premise is a false equivalence.
I mean…if you knew some of the things we ask 19 year olds to do overseas in the armed forces I think most would be stunned. I agree that restricting alcohol doesn’t make any sense if we trust them to do those sorts of things.
If anything, we shouldn't be letting kids fight wars. But hey, if recruitment was restricted to people 21+, they'd lose their whole force.
It’s mildly terrifying the first time, as a 20 year old kid, you are in the middle of a firefight and in one instant the realization that you are the person in charge hits. Realistically it takes like 5 seconds to process, but time absolutely slows down in that moment and it seems like days.
Maybe sending 18-year-olds to war is the real problem. Perhaps that age should be raised to 21.
Bingo
Because the gun lobby pays the most money.
This is the answer. Two opposing lobbies.
Lol, the alcohol lobby is WAY richer than the gun lobby. The gun lobby doesn’t even have very much money (but they don’t need it).
So you can die in a foreign war that doesn't benefit anyone but the rich
There a reckless culture around alcohol but I also think you should be able to drink when you’re 18
[removed]
Our automod has removed your comment. This is a place where people can ask questions without being called stupid - or see slurs being used. Even when people don't intend it that way, when someone uses a word like 'retarded' as an insult it sends a rude message to people with disabilities.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Not sure if this is totally true. I heard that our bodies stop growing at 21. And if we’re using alcohol before that time, it can mess up those growth patterns.
MADD and publicity.
Because stupid people make rules.
Because drunken teens with guns are even more dangerous than sober teens with guns?
Merica
It sounds like we are talking US. Federal law requires you to be 21 to purchase handguns and 18 for long arms. Some states have higher age requirements for long arms.
That said, possession of firearms is a right. Alcohol is a privilege.
It's hypocrisy to be sure. At 18, all rights of a US citizen should be there, including consuming alcohol.
I guess that alchohol makes them want to shoot the gun.
Because they make money off alcohol rehabs not gun rehabs. Everything here is about making money
You’re only allowed to owe some guns as an 18 year old, not only long guns. Handguns are usually restricted to 21+ due to the fact that they are easily concealable and more often used in violent crimes.
Also it’s important to note that the 21-year-old drinking age was a federal decision that was forced onto many states under threat of losing federal funding. If most Midwest and Southern states had their way the drinking age would still be 18 (or maybe even lower). Gun laws, meanwhile, are largely determined by the state and the federal government has been very reluctant to pass any federal legislation that fully prohibits anyone but felons from owning guns. When the federal government passes gun laws it’s usually increasing the length and depth of the process of buying a gun rather than outright stoping anyone from getting them.
Your average 18 year old will understand basic human decency, responsibility, and the difference between right and wrong. Firearms are tools, and when handled properly are never a danger to anyone. Alcohol affects everyone differently, and shifts people’s behavior in unpredictable ways. But realistically that’s kind of bs.
People are also able to drive at 16, and you could cause a ridiculous amount of damage with a vehicle if you wanted. People can enlist in the military at 18 of their own free will and die in training or from freak accidents before legally being able to have a beer. I think the actual answer is it’s just a dumb bit of legislature that hasn’t been changed yet.
Ask MADD (mothers against drunk driving) they lobbied to raise it from 18 to 21 in the early 80s.
In Australia our legal drinking age is 18, like everything.
Lots of young people are irresponsible and get hurt or killed and alcohol is a factor. Very few young people get hurt or killed with guns, and those that shoot up schools or gang members don't care if it's legal for them to possess a gun anyway.
In Ontario the drinking age was bumped to 19 in 1978, mostly to get the drinking age out of high school. At that time, Ontario still had Grade 13 for students preparing for University. As for guns, I believe Ontario allowed 16 year olds to have gun licenses for hunting purposes. I'm not sure now, but handguns were not permitted, nor legally available. Hand guns were not available to the public, only for law enforcement and the military.
The same reasons Americans will watch violent gory bloody movies full of death and murder with their families, but find it awkward if somebody shows their their breasts. It's because America is a Puritan country
Because we keep creeping toward a Nanny state. We make decisions and law based on emotion instead of logic and reason. In an effort to prevent all tragedy, which is impossible, we allow our individual rights to be whittled down. If 18 is the age of majority, all regulations based on age should be based on age 18.
You wouldn't want a drunk 18 year old with a gun, would you?
The Federal government forced all the states to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funding.
The drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 to keep 18 year olds still in high school from sharing it with their non-yet-18 friends, acquaintances, and siblings. That wasn't done with cigarettes, for a comparison.
You can be trained with a gun. You can't train an alcoholic.
Because the federal government withheld state highway funds unless the drinking age in state was raised to 21
A sober and armed 18 year old is less dangerous than a drunk unarmed 18 year old.
You really want to avoid a drunk and armed 18 year old.
You could just as easily ask why we allow alcohol or guns at any age and get very similar answers, from 2 different groups...
It's all about the draft and military service.
The real reason is the federal government tied infrastructure funding to a legal drinking age of 21. The courts ruled the Federal government could not put the restriction in place directly so they tied it to funding forcing states to comply or lose funding..
Which is what makes the federal law.on smoking such a head scratcher as the courts had previously ruled they couldn't do so.
Prior to that many states lowered the drinking age to 18 when the voting age was lowered, using the same exact argument you are using. And its a pretty sound argument to either lower the age to drink/smoke or raise the age of voting.
If you raise the voting age, you’d probably have to raise the military service age too. The argument would, and definitely should be if you’re old enough to serve, you’re old enough to vote.
Because gun manufacturers bribe congressmen.
They can’t be
Because it would be awkward to get recruited/drafted into the military and be unable to hold a gun.
They can?
Correction, 12 year olds can be trusted with guns. Because reasons.
Simple.
Guns don't inhibit anyones ability to think clearly.
Alcohol inhibits everyones ability to think clearly.
Any more brain busters?
Because the right to drink alcohol isn't enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The right to bear arms is.
You have MADD to thank for that. They put in a hostage provision for highway funding that if a state sets their drinking age below 21, they lose 10% of all highway funding. College towns love that drinking age for revenues from minor-in-possession (MIP) fines.
Some would argue that a 16 year old behind the wheel is more dangerous than a legal adult with a gun. Then again, it takes more to get a license than a gun.
Idk if you’ve met any of today’s 18yo but they shouldn’t be trusted with anything. Definitely not guns.
18 year olds cannot be trusted with alcohol, because they have guns. Would you give a bunch of dumb-ass kids with guns, ALCOHOL?????🤨🥺
I’d argue it’s because this country is completely fucked on its morals and priorities. Despite being “free” the govt seeks to control. Only getting worse.
There is a 2nd amendment nation-wide right to firearms, while the 21st amendment explicitly allows states to regulate alcohol as they see fit.
Of course the 2nd isn't absolute, as pistol ownership is limited to those 21+, and certain classes of firearms are heavily regulated/ de facto prohibited. However, the point remains, States must constitutionally allow some form of civilian firearm ownership, while they are constitutionally allowed to limit alcohol however they deem fit, up to and including full prohibition (though no state does so).
Gun lobby
Do you want drunken 18yr olds with guns
Because of gun lobbyists, the NRA. Gotta be able to shoot people as a teenager, am I right?!
USA is wild like that. They send fresh18 year olds to fight in wars and spend months in countries far away form home. You would be shocked how many soldiers come to Tijuana so they can finally enjoy some freedom with drinks and the girls.
In Europe the drinking age is lower than 18 and it is less taboo so fewer people abuse it. Just weird " here's a rifle and dangerous military ordinance but no beers or smokes for you!"
Right vs Privilege
18 year olds should not be trusted with alcohol. Nobody should be trusted with goddamn military assault weapons unless they are in the military.
Owning a gun is an explicitly constitutionally protected right; drinking alcohol is not. Therefore, it is a much higher bar to deny a group of people the right to own a gun Vs drink alcohol
Exactly, and as far as I am concerned we should treat 18 year olds as an adult for all things. Drinking, legal weed or other drugs, drinking, guns, voting, etc.
It's harder to send kids out to die in wars on behalf of old men if they can't use guns.
This is suggesting they only have guns as part of service. Any dumbass can get a gun.
You can teach children how to be responsible with weapons for when they grow up. You can't teach them anything to help them when they drink one too many.
How does being three years older differ
18 year old is not a child. They are a legal adult in every country. Stop infantilizing adults
Because America, fuck yeah!
Because of selective service, and drunk driving.
Here in the civilized world, 18 year olds aren't trusted with guns and are trusted with alcohol.
Civilians in general shouldn't be trusted with guns and unless certified and trained, we generally don't.
Hope that clears things up.
Pretty sure alcohol around the world kills more than guns.
Your government has killed way more innocent people than civilian owned guns, bucko
One is more culturally ingrained with concepts of patriotism and nationalism which is really big in American culture.
What I always found odd was that you can't drink alcohol at 18, but you can drive at like 16. Seems to me one if those is capable of causing a lot more damage in the hands of an emotionally undeveloped person
There have been more wars in this country because of booze than guns
The other is culturally ingrained with human history over centuries throughout the entire world
‘Merica
The US is a car centric country
We have the statistics to back up the fact that teenagers especially, are more prone to drunk driving and causing serious accidents, harm, and death than people over the age of 21
Because gun corporations pay lawmakers more.
Because the States has a messed up obsession with guns and it's outdated 'right to bear arms'
That's why they tolerate the almost annual massacres of school kids, they see it overall as a small price to pay to protect their 'right'
they’re not. personally I don’t think you should be able to buy a gun that isn’t meant for hunting until your brain is fully developed at around 24. And it should be HEAVILY regulated (people conveniently leave that out when arguing second amendment) and not allowed to just anyone who feels like it. unfortunately a lot of accidents come from dumb adults though so I don’t know how you can prove to anyone you actually care about locking up your weapon so your toddler doesn’t reach it.
Because this country pretends that guns are no problem.
[removed]
Simple. Compare domestic deaths caused by alcohol versus domestic deaths caused by firearms.
In anecdotal/specific circumstances, a gun is inarguably more dangerous than a simple glass filled with tequila and lime juice.
But, broadly speaking, alcohol kills far more people every year.
18 year olds used to be trusted with alcohol. Then there was a big push from MADD to raise the legal drinking age to cut down on DUIs. Regan being the family values president he was, he wasn't exactly going to put up much of a fight against Mothers Against Drunk Driving in an argument focused around drunk driving. Even a blind guy can see that that would be political suicide.
Also, remember that you used to have to be 21 to vote in the US. So as recent as the 70s, at 18, you could be drafted, voluntarily join the military, buy beer, and many other things, but you couldn't vote.
Yes, it was a big push, so they decided to lower the voting age instead of raising the age when children could be sent to the meat grinders.