BY JOHN K. WILSON
Young adults are under attack. Dick’s, Wal-Mart, Kroger and other stores have announced that they are raising the age limit to 21 for gun purchases. Donald Trump expressed his support for raising the age limit, declaring that “it’s a big issue now,” despite the opposition of the National Rifle Association to the idea.
But it’s dangerous to restrict the rights of adults under 21 for two reasons.
First of all, it’s dangerous because there’s a high probability that age discrimination will be used to undermine real gun control. In a climate where everybody is demanding, “Do something,” if the only political result of this gun tragedy will be to raise the age limit on buying guns, then almost nothing will be accomplished and an opportunity for real gun control will be lost. If gun ownership should be restricted (and it should be), then the restrictions should apply to all adults. When you call for raising age limits on guns, you are saying that teenagers are the problem, and guns are not the problem and do not need to be restricted.
Second, raising age limits is a threat to free speech on college campuses. Whenever we announce that traditional college-age students are not really adults and do not have the same rights as adults, we open the door for further restrictions on their rights.
Yes, we already restrict the rights of adults under 21 by banning them from buying alcohol and banning them from buying handguns. But that’s not a good reason to expand these regulations. There’s no evidence that the age limit on handguns has substantially reduced crime. There’s no evidence that the age limit on alcohol has been a benefit to society. Those under 21 who want to drink alcohol (which is most of them) are forced into fraternities and unregulated off-campus parties, which are actually more dangerous for them than legal alcohol.
The fact that the Parkland massacre was committed by someone under 21 is not a good reason to restrict the rights of adults under 21. If anyone proposed banning gun sales to men and white people because the killer (like most mass killers) was a white man, the idea would be considered laughable. Yet because the killer was a young adult, age restrictions are widely considered a good idea. We should not embrace the logic of age discrimination as a solution for the problem of military weapons being widely available in our society. This is a false solution. Does anyone think that a young adult can’t find an older friend to purchase it for them, steal from their parents, use a fake ID, or buy it illegally? Age restrictions on guns will fail for the same reasons that age restrictions on alcohol fail. If you allow deadly weapons to be widely sold in America, then those same guns will be widely available for use by killers of all ages.
Gun control advocates want to discriminate against young adults because they desperately need some small victories to build upon. Gun control opponents like Trump want to discriminate against young adults because they are happy to sacrifice the rights of a group with almost no political power in order to prevent actual gun control measures.
But these restrictions are wrong. Discrimination against young adults will not make us safer because it will not confront the core necessity of getting assault weapons off our streets.
The age notion is a total red herring, verging on a brutally dishonest scam. Lessons from Canada and Australia is that the problem is easy access to weapons at any age, period.
A smart essay; creative and logical. It is admirable the writer is alert to broader social ramifications, or unintended consequences, in an otherwise emotional controversy. My criticism is directed at the immediate causal issue, the event in Florida, and its ready, uncritical acceptance. One may appreciate that no forensic investigation, or 3rd party probity, has been undertaken, let alone completed for the Florida event and therefore there are no verified facts and data. There are stories, assertions and a photo-montage of emotionalism, but no appeal-proof, let alone trial-ready, facts (indeed, there are none extant in the public record for any similar events). To call for various regulatory responses (or even to let certain media positions remain unchallenged) at this point, would be like pursuing new regulations from an airplane crash, without an accident investigation, public hearing and report. It would be incoherent and counterproductive. I agree with the general characterization (or implication) of the undergraduate student relationship to the university; one in many ways defined by an effective in loco parentis role assumed by university administrations and even the academy, to some extent. Further eroding young adult legal and other status, is troubling, for many reasons. In my view it is the key takeaway message. Readers may otherwise appreciate, from of all sources, a NYT article containing some inconvenient facts vis-a-vis firearms control (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html). Regards.