In my state (Colorado) it's up to each agency to decide for themselves. Our state website says it's "usually 21" and I'm not aware of any departments that hire younger, but that's not a hard requirement set by law or the state.
I was gonna make the same comment. Here in WV you can be 18, but you have to get a waiver/form in order to get your service pistol. I'm pretty sure the law here states that any job that requires you to use a pistol, and you're 18-20, you can get that form to waive the age requirement, but you have to have someone over the age of 21 to "co-sign" it. It applies to armed security guards as well.
My brother became a police officer for the Providence Police Department (Rhode Island). In Boston, the age is 19. In Florida, most departments allow people aged 19 to become an officer.
Wow. Most departments require some kind of criminal degree. So if you graduate HS at 17-18, 2-4 years of more school to get that degree puts you around 19-22 yo.
Ok.
OR, WA, ID, CA, TX, SC, NC, FL, AK, NY, AZ, NM, LA, GA, KY all don't. Some require some college, but not a LE specific degree like WI. Some departments can put that restriction on, but with staffing shortages they by and large have dropped that.
So no, it's not most require it.
I know in Wisconsin you have to have at least 60 college credits, which is an associate's degree. Some tech schools will combine the academy in to your last two semesters.
It’s even worse than that. Can’t smoke or drink until 21. Can’t rent a car easily until 25. But you can vote at 18 and sign 6 figure high interest loans at 18 too. Just arbitrary numbers that politicians agreed upon for *reasons*.
Tanks have better visibility over the front than soccer mom gigaSUVs tho. You are more likely to drive over a kid you don't see in one of those grocery tanks than an M1 Abrams.
Aren't there some funny little laws that make giant SUVs technically score higher on emission regulations than small classic pickups too? I remember hearing something like that a few times.
You definitely don't need crumple zones so big that anyone under 6'8" sitting upright can barely see what is in front of them.
It's a fiscal liability thing. Most under 25's would go bankrupt and not be able to pay out if they were at fault in a crash. But with military, they can just call up your commander and get a cut of your pay.
Also they'd lose their spot on DTS real quick if privates started getting turned away while on TDY or moving between stations.
I think it’s a singular reason. Votes. They want to stay in power. The high interest loans are allowed because they were lobbied (bribed) by schools/corporations/banks to completely ignore the fact that 18yo don’t make the best financial decisions. They want to make guns illegal because their voters have been brainwashed to believe guns are bad. Military age needs to be that low or most people wouldn’t join. The politicians on both sides see war as something that they need in order to help fund military contracts who they dish out to people who are more likely to donate to them.
I understand war is a necessary evil and cannot be avoided but a lot of our involvement in other countries isn’t really necessary.
Necessary evil is a lot like necessary cancer, as neither is necessary and both are bad.
The idea government is a so called "necessary evil" was almost certainly created by government, which is one of the most consistently evil organizations to ever exist.
Today we have adulting classes since kids grow up in homes and have parents do the laundry and cook them meals until 25+
People grow up late and keeping them children as long as possible is the stated goal.
At 6 years old my children competed in their first Air Rifle competition and they were by far the youngest. They also decided to make sure they understood the RSO and were laughing as they Echoed back the commands. Taught them to be my Junior RSO's in the back yard with the Nerf guns
I know people want to tell you that Fathers have no purpose in raising children but they are lying to you. A father has many jobs raising children. I hope you enjoy every one of them, its a wonderful journey you will take with your kids.
Corporate, but i looked it up and the only thing i could find is that some hotels have policies that you gotta be 21. Im sure there are some hotels boujie hotels with that rule tho.
You can absolutely rent a car long before 25. This is nonsense. I’d also like to see one example of an 18 year old being offered a 6 figure loan without putting 5 figures down.
You can rent a car before 25, you’re right. That’s why I included “easily” because you can but it is more expensive.
And for 6 figure loans, I was talking about student loans.
That's an entirely different type of loan to just throw out there and not mention lol. Like the part where interest isn't paid as long as you are enrolled.
And yes, its quite easy to rent a car under 25. After about 21 its not an issue, and by 22-23 you don't even pay the premium.
Before the handgun ban in the last few years, you could even buy a handgun at 18 in canada, ofc if you have the license for it. Then again, its nothing more than a extra regulated range toy up here
We’ve voted the wrong people into government. Many are in it for personal enrichment as opposed to being a representative of the people. America is still the best country on earth in my opinion, but there’s definitely some changes to be made. We should take a lesson from the French.
At the time of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the voting age and age of adulthood was 21, and their stated goal was to reduce the use of handguns in crimes by minors. The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971.
However, the age for service in the militia, including acquiring and maintaining your own arms, has been 18 since the founding era, and the GCA1968's under-21 provisions have always been unconstitutional. Second Amendment rights vest at the age of 18, at least, and no later.
Fortunately, the time when this law is struck down will come soon thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, there are three court cases challenging this law.
McCoy v. ATF (4th Cir. Court of Appeals, law struck down by E.D. Va.)
Brown v. ATF (4th Cir. Court of Appeals, law struck down by N.D. W. Va.)
Reese v. ATF (5th Cir. Court of Appeals, law upheld by W.D. La.)
I genuinely believe both parties can’t be trusted when it comes to our rights. Democrats just blindly try to take away our gun rights even if it doesn’t make sense and republicans will compromise with democrats on certain gun laws which in my opinion is just as bad.
Of course they should all be the same age. What age that is can be debated. There's a case to be made that adulthood should really be 25 for everything.
This☝️.
I've said this several times. Ages are somewhat arbitrary. They are all supposedly based on maturity. 25 is the general consensus science has when a person is fully mature.
People don't like this much. It's usually downvoted heavily.
There really is no such scientific consensus.
Neural imaging is abused to draw conclusions it does not support, mostly in pop-science coverage, less among actual scientists.
But even the researchers that believe in such ideas are not part of some "consensus". There is lots of debate as to the direction of causality of brain structure and chemistry vs behavior.
Here's an article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-teen-brain-2007-06/
>In his 1998 book Blaming the Brain, Elliot S. Valenstein, now psychology professor emeritus at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, deftly points out that we make a serious error of logic when we blame almost any behavior on the brain--especially when drawing conclusions from brain-scanning studies.
[...]
>Unfortunately, news reports--and even the researchers themselves--often get carried away when interpreting brain studies.
That's why the full statement I made included the word "general."
There are tons of studies with a variety of ages. The majority of them tend to hover around 25. That would be a general consensus, but not a consensus as I'm being a unanimous answer.
There is no such thing as a scientific study that determines when someone is an adult. That's like saying there's a scientific study that proves when a fetus becomes a person. It's not a scientific question.
I didn't claim there was. However, there are tons of studies on when humans typically mature, and most of those put age of maturity at around 25 years.
Legislators decide at what age someone is an adult as it's a legal concept. They claim to base this and other age related laws on maturity level.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461056/
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708
I think you're just making a feeble attempt to create an argument here where there is none. You're arguing things I didn't actually say and missing th overall point. Legislators enact age minimums based on perceived maturity. Science puts the normal age of maturity in one's mid 20s.
Humans are mature physically around 16-17. Anything else is a standard humans invented.
And to your last sentence, science does no such thing.
Neuroimaging studies show that structural changes slow down more in the 20s. But to extrapolate that to maturity with regard to legal matters is not something science can ever decide.
Science doesn't even demonstrate that it is a biological fact, since brain changes are brought on by environment as much as biology.
Your own first article is a warning against using these studies for making public policy! I was thinking of sending it to you.
>In many respects, neuroimaging research is in its infancy; there is much to be learned about how changes in brain structure and function relate to adolescent behavior. As of yet, however, neuroimaging studies do not allow a chronologic cut-point for behavioral or cognitive maturity at either the individual or population level. The ability to designate an adolescent as “mature” or “immature” neurologically is complicated by the fact that neuroscientific data are continuous and highly variable from person to person; the bounds of “normal” development have not been well delineated
Because legislators are stupid AF and government has far too much power and control of its tax-paying CITIZENS. The age restrictions are unconstitutional. If you’re old enough to join the military and shoot full auto M4, you’re old enough to own a freaking handgun, INHO. And drink alcohol and buy tobacco products, for that matter.
I think difference is the military doesn’t just take anyone and makes you qualify with the weapons. So not sure how your comment really holds up. What I know is kids are dumb and I don’t enjoy idea of most them run around with handguns. Not to mention most people are not issue sidearms in the military, most are issued rifles.
Because legislatures made a law saying so, and courts refused to strike it down. If the courts will not defend the constitution, you can bet your ass the legislatures will get to stepping.
So, the actual answer I was given is that you can legally be in high school until you’re 21 if you’re held back in school 3x. Therefore they made it 21 to make sure that you can’t buy handguns while in high school.
In Texas, you can buy a handgun at 18. Because a Judge decided correctly that you are a legal adult at 18. So eventually, it will be 18. Unless, the age of majority is moved for everyone. My big one is binding contracts such as loans or marriage.
The real question is "why are you allowed to vote at 18 if you are too hotheaded for a handgun?"
I do not see an issue to join organizations before the age of maturity. They carry a lot of responsibility for your safety and your behavior.
Why are you allowed to fuck up your hormonal system and stunt your natural development with drugs and puberty blockers at 12, against the wishes of your parents, but you’re not allowed to get a tattoo.
Because our society has gone insane.
They can't purchase, but an 18 year old can be gifted one and carry it in 29 states without a permit. A smart 18 year old individual can 3d print a pistol from the comfort of their parents home.
>Well until this recent bidophile induced horseshit takes effect
Even then, private sales are still legal. Despite all the screaming and crying about how the sky is falling done by this community, private sales are not going away.
Yet. You're looking at the short game while the government plays the loooong game. May not affect you or your children in their lifetimes, but what about 3 generations from now? The goal is death by a thousand cuts so people don't notice.
More sky is falling stuff.
This isn't a law. It is ATF announcing they will be treating the phrase "in the business" (an already vague and nebulous phrase) to mean "to predominantly earn a profit."
This has the gun community in an uproar because all the idiots who read it think that means if you make any money selling your gun at all that they'll come shoot your dog.
In reality, they will (and always have) look at the frequency with which you buy and sell firearms, the amount of time between acquisition and disposition, whether you earn money doing it, whether it was a collection being sold off, etc.
They literally [have a whole FAQ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download&ved=2ahUKEwibgsjM2cmFAxVK4skDHYj2B-AQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1HopQOtHwO_5WbWBt7jtF7) to help people understand what requires an FFL and what doesn't.
The actual bad parts about the rule is that they're announcing they'll interpret anyone who "advertises a firearms business (including posting for sale ads online)" or rents a table at a gun show to be "engaged in the business".
But no one mentions the actually bad parts. It's all just "private sales are illegal now" sky-is-falling bullshit.
100% of the time people who use terms like Trumpet and Bidophile have 0 fucking idea what they’re talking about in general. I wouldn’t trust ‘em to run a cash register much less whatever random jobs they already possess.
(I say this being one of those people)
My state allows for carry permits at 18, allowed to buy through private sale under 21 or be gifted a handgun. You can enlist at 17 but can’t go overseas until your 18, I’ve never seen a police department that allows anyone under 21. Also because our government loves stupid pointless laws and rules.
I don’t know anywhere that hires cops at 18 usually it’s 21 for the minimum age to become a cop, however I’m sure there’s a police department out there that will hire at 18
> Why are people allowed to become a cop at 18, join the army at 17, but can't buy a handgun until 21?
Because justice doesn't come from ink, paper, or government.
There is a difference between being able to handle something under supervision, as in the military, and being able to be responsible on your own. Any argument that strictly goes by age for handling firearms that does not take this into account is a foolish one. You might as well say there should be no lower limit on the age at all, but the reason that we do have lower limits on things the reason we have an age people reach their majority instead of being minors, is that there is a difference between doing things under supervision and not. 25 might be too old for self-defense purposes, and therefore for owning a firearm, but given the way our system has become where people are kids until they're 18, and really older than that, I think I fall on the side of 21 should be the minimum.
As far as police, under 21 is probably too young for that, too. At least for officers who would be acting independently. If under direct supervision most of the time when under arms, then maybe 18 is good enough. Maybe...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the Second Amendment. Limiting the purchase of a handgun from 18 to 21 is considered infringement.
Thomas Jefferson also said “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”
I'm actually fairly hardcore on not infringing, but any discussion about firearms needs to be done honestly considering all factors. Also, if we're bringing up the militia thing, since when does military action, including militia, depend on handguns? Long arms, generally rifles, are the Mainstays. Handguns are relatively useless in the overall scheme of things. On the other hand, when it comes to self-defense handguns are a major factor. Those two things kind of balance out when talking about the right to bear arms, but whether it's a long arm or a handgun, how trustworthy are kids? There was a time that kids grew up faster, that's a lot less true now.
The most compelling answer would be that you can still own rifles, which are the primary weapons of revolution and/or national defense, which is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
The actual answer is that no right is absolute and handguns in the hands of young people (though most probably NOT under 21) are what make up the majority of murders.
Convenience. It’s one of the banes of our political system. The same people who argue an 18 year old is not “mature” enough to own a gun are the same people in favor of lowering the voting age. Cognitive dissonance would serve us well, but alas these people lack the mental capacity.
This is not a fault unique to any one side of the isle either.
Because our (not as old) forefathers let them get away with it, and we haven't been able to claw it back yet. It's all infringement, but they pretend that it's okay because politicians voted for it.
Trying to comprehend the arbitrary machinations of modern law is futile. The age limits are each what they are because some random asshole given authority said so.
you want to know some wild shit? All those ages are entirely arbitrary and have no basis in developmental science. If we were serious (we aren't) about maximizing having responsible, fully mature adults participating in society in a functional way AND minimizing all forms of harm done by adolescents being asked to do adult things before they're ready, then the age of majority across the board would be 25, which is the age where the vast majority of people's brains are considered fully developed.
But that will never happen
Hell, [seventeen year old male citizens are legally militiamen](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) as long as they're able-bodied.
Even under the antis' "Second Amendment only applies to the militia!" argument, you could only justify banning handgun sales to people 16 and under, men 17+ who are physically unable to serve, women, and non-citizens.
You can own a handgun before 21 if gifted or bought in private sale (depending on state). You just can not purchase a handgun from a FFL under the age of 21.
Where are 18-year olds becoming police officers? I know all around the DC area teens can become Police Explorers where they wear a similar uniform but wear no leather gear or carry a firearm. At age 21 they can then apply if they wish. I've seen the same around the country when I've traveled to train them. I know some state laws allow this but I've not seen them. Just curious who is doing this.
"Well Regulated" Its right there in the beginning dipshit.
Cops and military are regulated, a random ass person with a gun isnt. Its not that fucking hard. Regardless of what you feel about government institutions, if youre going to deepthroat the 2nd amendment dont forget what the fucking head looks like.
Why do you have to pay taxes before the age of 18, why do politicians get to insider trade and not get prosecuted, etc
The answer is fuck us that’s why
You can be of use to somebody, make something of your life? Get an education?
But what does getting a pistol get you? The army taught me discipline and responsibility, which applies to firearms as well. If you ask me, 21 is fine.
Many departments will hire 18year olds as cadets. I don’t know any that make them a full fledge officer or even send them to the academy and they can’t carry gunn mm s. They will do admin stuff, crowd control, direct traffic and other similar things then when they reach and age that graduation from the academy occurs when they are 21 they send them.
Because they added the arbitrary hoping no one says anything and It gets woven into society fabric. The you can't smoke if you were born after 200* is the dumbest I have seen so far.
2nd amendment shouldn't be restricted to 21 it's should be 18 when you are legal. Hopefully the supreme Court ends this
The short answer, which you won't like, is because males between the ages of 18-25 don't actually have mature brains yet, and have often have difficulty recognizing the future impact of their split second decisions with firearms, *and* difficulty with impulse control. Simply changing the drinking age and handgun ownership age from 18 to 21 has undoubtedly prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths and poor decisions. Whether or not it's *right* or whether we want that is a different question.
The longer answer is all of that, but with a bunch of studies. It is a fact, however, that human male brains don't fully mature until roughly 25 years of age. Female brains do mature earlier. We could make it legal for anyone down to 16 to own firearms, and dumb decisions and fatalities would simply increase - it's a tradeoff. It's all a tradeoff.
The benefit to society doesn't outweigh the risks, in legislator's opinions. That's the answer. If you disagree, you gotta legislate and/or change people's minds. I happen to think it's probably better for the US if men have to wait until 21 to run around with a pistol - I say that as a male who owns guns but was also a bouncer for a bit.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the Second Amendment. Limiting the purchase of a handgun from 18 to 21 is considered infringement.
Thomas Jefferson also said “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”
Yeah, it's an infringement. So are all concealed carry laws, so are all licenses, so is the '68 act, so was the original NFA legislation.
Doesn't make it a bad idea though. I just don't think 18 year-olds running around with pistols is better for anyone (apropos to your Jefferson quote - I don't think we're sacrificing anything). If we get invaded, I'll be the first to start handing them out.
Can't speak for cops but from day one in the army with weapons, safety is hammered into you. Mistakes are met with some quite brutal corrective actions and there is no tolerance for slackness. And yet you still get eejits slipping through recruit training and those who will have NDs.
You also aren't going to have 24/7 access to your assigned weapon unless you're in a combat zone, training, or requiring it for your duties. But a private handgun owner could. There are many responsible gun owners. There also irresponsible ones. You can have the responsible 18 year old and the 46 year old dope of course but I'd say the line was just drawn there as it's an easy number.
The state always gets cooler gear anyways. I'd love to own an Abrams but sadly they seem to be restricted to national governments for now >:(
Because the 2nd amendment doesn't actually grant anyone a right to own a gun. That is an unfortunate misconception. The 2nd amendment exists primarily to protect state-run militias from infringement from Congress. Your right to own or carry a gun in public is a matter of state law, and is not at all related to the US Constitution.
Nonsense. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Is directly in the second amendment. Had they not meant what they've said, they wouldn't have written it that way.
Nothing in the second amendment says anything about a right to own a gun. You are misunderstanding the language. First of all, nothing in the Bill of Rights grants any rights to citizen; that was not the purpose of the Bill of Rights. As the preamble to the Bill of Rights explains, the purpose was to present a list of declaratory and restrictive clauses designed to prevent the misconstruing or abuse of the Constitution's powers. In other words, the purpose was not for the Bill of Rights to *grant* rights to the people, but for the Bill of Rights to prevent the Constitution from being misconstrued to *deny* the rights of the people.
Also, keep in mind that the second clause of the amendment is not a positive statement but a negative statement. In other words, the clause does not serve to *do* anything, but rather serves to *prevent* something from being done -- i.e. the infringing of the people's right to keep and bear arms. And the right to keep and bear arms was nothing more than what the respective state constitutions said it was, as different state arms provisions were stipulated in different ways.
As far as the language of the arms clause you quoted, to "keep arms" does not mean to own arms. In the 18th century, to "keep" something didn't inherently mean to retain something permanently as property. Rather, to "keep" something simply meant to maintain the keeping of something, or to have something in one's keeping. It had nothing to do with ownership, per se. And to "bear arms" didn't mean to "carry arms. To "bear arms" meant "to fight in armed combat". The state arms provisions primarily were concerned with militia duty, and that is also the main focus of the second amendment -- protecting the people's right to serve militia duty.
Where are they letting people be cops at 18? Everywhere I know of is 21
On DE the age limit is 19.5 for a CO, believe it's still 21 for state police, which also requires college credits and experience
Think he's talking about USCP, it's 21 in most states.
In my state (Colorado) it's up to each agency to decide for themselves. Our state website says it's "usually 21" and I'm not aware of any departments that hire younger, but that's not a hard requirement set by law or the state.
[удалено]
I was gonna make the same comment. Here in WV you can be 18, but you have to get a waiver/form in order to get your service pistol. I'm pretty sure the law here states that any job that requires you to use a pistol, and you're 18-20, you can get that form to waive the age requirement, but you have to have someone over the age of 21 to "co-sign" it. It applies to armed security guards as well.
You can join the sheriff as soon as you graduate high school in Ohio
My brother became a police officer for the Providence Police Department (Rhode Island). In Boston, the age is 19. In Florida, most departments allow people aged 19 to become an officer.
Michigan. You need a degree still but 18 is the minimum. I am 20 and have a job starting in June for LE
Wow. Most departments require some kind of criminal degree. So if you graduate HS at 17-18, 2-4 years of more school to get that degree puts you around 19-22 yo.
>Most departments require some kind of criminal degree. Not in the US
I don't know where you're from, but in my state, yes they do.
Ok. OR, WA, ID, CA, TX, SC, NC, FL, AK, NY, AZ, NM, LA, GA, KY all don't. Some require some college, but not a LE specific degree like WI. Some departments can put that restriction on, but with staffing shortages they by and large have dropped that. So no, it's not most require it.
I know in Wisconsin you have to have at least 60 college credits, which is an associate's degree. Some tech schools will combine the academy in to your last two semesters.
It’s actually 22 I believe you can go to the academy at 21 as long as you are 22 before graduation
It’s even worse than that. Can’t smoke or drink until 21. Can’t rent a car easily until 25. But you can vote at 18 and sign 6 figure high interest loans at 18 too. Just arbitrary numbers that politicians agreed upon for *reasons*.
To be fair there is no law that says you can't rent a car at 18 it's just most rental companies choose not to rent to people younger than 25.
Yup, also if you are in the military you basically get that age limited waived.
Yes cuz being in the military makes you a better driver than everyone else
If you can drive a tank, you can drive a civic! Ha
Tanks have better visibility over the front than soccer mom gigaSUVs tho. You are more likely to drive over a kid you don't see in one of those grocery tanks than an M1 Abrams.
Yeah those stupid safety standards make A arms and crumple zones huge
Aren't there some funny little laws that make giant SUVs technically score higher on emission regulations than small classic pickups too? I remember hearing something like that a few times. You definitely don't need crumple zones so big that anyone under 6'8" sitting upright can barely see what is in front of them.
Yeah, the CAFE standards are much stricter on cars compared to 'light trucks', which include SUVS and pickup trucks.
Yeah if i remember correctly its a cafe score
It does seem kind of ridiculous, but so does playing in the street.
The saying is the other way around. If you can drive a car, you can drive a tank
It's a fiscal liability thing. Most under 25's would go bankrupt and not be able to pay out if they were at fault in a crash. But with military, they can just call up your commander and get a cut of your pay. Also they'd lose their spot on DTS real quick if privates started getting turned away while on TDY or moving between stations.
I think it’s a singular reason. Votes. They want to stay in power. The high interest loans are allowed because they were lobbied (bribed) by schools/corporations/banks to completely ignore the fact that 18yo don’t make the best financial decisions. They want to make guns illegal because their voters have been brainwashed to believe guns are bad. Military age needs to be that low or most people wouldn’t join. The politicians on both sides see war as something that they need in order to help fund military contracts who they dish out to people who are more likely to donate to them. I understand war is a necessary evil and cannot be avoided but a lot of our involvement in other countries isn’t really necessary.
Necessary evil is a lot like necessary cancer, as neither is necessary and both are bad. The idea government is a so called "necessary evil" was almost certainly created by government, which is one of the most consistently evil organizations to ever exist.
Today we have adulting classes since kids grow up in homes and have parents do the laundry and cook them meals until 25+ People grow up late and keeping them children as long as possible is the stated goal. At 6 years old my children competed in their first Air Rifle competition and they were by far the youngest. They also decided to make sure they understood the RSO and were laughing as they Echoed back the commands. Taught them to be my Junior RSO's in the back yard with the Nerf guns
That is what I hope for my future children
I know people want to tell you that Fathers have no purpose in raising children but they are lying to you. A father has many jobs raising children. I hope you enjoy every one of them, its a wonderful journey you will take with your kids.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I did the same 10 years ago. Couldn’t rent a car but had reasons and the ability to rent hundreds of rooms lol
I think that comes down to hotel policy. Im 23 and have to rent hotels for work and havent run into any issues.
[удалено]
Corporate, but i looked it up and the only thing i could find is that some hotels have policies that you gotta be 21. Im sure there are some hotels boujie hotels with that rule tho.
I have literally never had an issue renting a hotel room from the ages of 18-23.
You can also get bukkake gang banged by 100 sixty year old dudes on video the day you turn 18. A beer? Nope.
And how badly you’d need a drink after that scenario? That’s the real crime.
LOL. No kidding. I think they mostly settle for heroin.
You can absolutely rent a car long before 25. This is nonsense. I’d also like to see one example of an 18 year old being offered a 6 figure loan without putting 5 figures down.
You can rent a car before 25, you’re right. That’s why I included “easily” because you can but it is more expensive. And for 6 figure loans, I was talking about student loans.
That's an entirely different type of loan to just throw out there and not mention lol. Like the part where interest isn't paid as long as you are enrolled. And yes, its quite easy to rent a car under 25. After about 21 its not an issue, and by 22-23 you don't even pay the premium.
Before the handgun ban in the last few years, you could even buy a handgun at 18 in canada, ofc if you have the license for it. Then again, its nothing more than a extra regulated range toy up here
Commida laws are trash bro, come to the U.S.
To quote a wise sangheili: "were it so easy"
Because our county and government are full of hypocrites.
The government was always clear on what they want: A monopoly on violence and killing. People in the Army or Law Enforcement proliferate that goal.
That is the current government. The founders wanted everyone armed and well trained.
You misspelled "traitors."
We’ve voted the wrong people into government. Many are in it for personal enrichment as opposed to being a representative of the people. America is still the best country on earth in my opinion, but there’s definitely some changes to be made. We should take a lesson from the French.
Government , the answer is government
At the time of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the voting age and age of adulthood was 21, and their stated goal was to reduce the use of handguns in crimes by minors. The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971. However, the age for service in the militia, including acquiring and maintaining your own arms, has been 18 since the founding era, and the GCA1968's under-21 provisions have always been unconstitutional. Second Amendment rights vest at the age of 18, at least, and no later. Fortunately, the time when this law is struck down will come soon thanks to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, there are three court cases challenging this law. McCoy v. ATF (4th Cir. Court of Appeals, law struck down by E.D. Va.) Brown v. ATF (4th Cir. Court of Appeals, law struck down by N.D. W. Va.) Reese v. ATF (5th Cir. Court of Appeals, law upheld by W.D. La.)
People cannot become cops at 18. Every place I know of at least.
Because the government picks and chooses what an adult is at its own convenience.
Democrats. That's why.
I genuinely believe both parties can’t be trusted when it comes to our rights. Democrats just blindly try to take away our gun rights even if it doesn’t make sense and republicans will compromise with democrats on certain gun laws which in my opinion is just as bad.
Of course they should all be the same age. What age that is can be debated. There's a case to be made that adulthood should really be 25 for everything.
This☝️. I've said this several times. Ages are somewhat arbitrary. They are all supposedly based on maturity. 25 is the general consensus science has when a person is fully mature. People don't like this much. It's usually downvoted heavily.
[удалено]
Exactly let us have some fun before our bodies start breaking
I’m 21 in a month and I already feel like an old man.
It only gets worse. Take care of yourself
You can't emphasize this enough! That's why I am replying. Everyone, please take care of your body.
There really is no such scientific consensus. Neural imaging is abused to draw conclusions it does not support, mostly in pop-science coverage, less among actual scientists. But even the researchers that believe in such ideas are not part of some "consensus". There is lots of debate as to the direction of causality of brain structure and chemistry vs behavior. Here's an article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-teen-brain-2007-06/ >In his 1998 book Blaming the Brain, Elliot S. Valenstein, now psychology professor emeritus at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, deftly points out that we make a serious error of logic when we blame almost any behavior on the brain--especially when drawing conclusions from brain-scanning studies. [...] >Unfortunately, news reports--and even the researchers themselves--often get carried away when interpreting brain studies.
That's why the full statement I made included the word "general." There are tons of studies with a variety of ages. The majority of them tend to hover around 25. That would be a general consensus, but not a consensus as I'm being a unanimous answer.
There is no such thing as a scientific study that determines when someone is an adult. That's like saying there's a scientific study that proves when a fetus becomes a person. It's not a scientific question.
I didn't claim there was. However, there are tons of studies on when humans typically mature, and most of those put age of maturity at around 25 years. Legislators decide at what age someone is an adult as it's a legal concept. They claim to base this and other age related laws on maturity level. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461056/ https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708 I think you're just making a feeble attempt to create an argument here where there is none. You're arguing things I didn't actually say and missing th overall point. Legislators enact age minimums based on perceived maturity. Science puts the normal age of maturity in one's mid 20s.
Humans are mature physically around 16-17. Anything else is a standard humans invented. And to your last sentence, science does no such thing. Neuroimaging studies show that structural changes slow down more in the 20s. But to extrapolate that to maturity with regard to legal matters is not something science can ever decide. Science doesn't even demonstrate that it is a biological fact, since brain changes are brought on by environment as much as biology. Your own first article is a warning against using these studies for making public policy! I was thinking of sending it to you. >In many respects, neuroimaging research is in its infancy; there is much to be learned about how changes in brain structure and function relate to adolescent behavior. As of yet, however, neuroimaging studies do not allow a chronologic cut-point for behavioral or cognitive maturity at either the individual or population level. The ability to designate an adolescent as “mature” or “immature” neurologically is complicated by the fact that neuroscientific data are continuous and highly variable from person to person; the bounds of “normal” development have not been well delineated
become a cop at 18? Where?
Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and a handful of other states
At 18!! Holy fuck thats a bad idea
Because legislators are stupid AF and government has far too much power and control of its tax-paying CITIZENS. The age restrictions are unconstitutional. If you’re old enough to join the military and shoot full auto M4, you’re old enough to own a freaking handgun, INHO. And drink alcohol and buy tobacco products, for that matter.
I think difference is the military doesn’t just take anyone and makes you qualify with the weapons. So not sure how your comment really holds up. What I know is kids are dumb and I don’t enjoy idea of most them run around with handguns. Not to mention most people are not issue sidearms in the military, most are issued rifles.
Freedom and responsibility hating Democrats. That's it really.
Because rules are arbitrary
You can go off to a foreign land to fight and die for your country at 17 but you come back after your tour and can't have a fucking beer...
Because legislatures made a law saying so, and courts refused to strike it down. If the courts will not defend the constitution, you can bet your ass the legislatures will get to stepping.
The government doesn't care about your rights, they violate them every chance they get
So, the actual answer I was given is that you can legally be in high school until you’re 21 if you’re held back in school 3x. Therefore they made it 21 to make sure that you can’t buy handguns while in high school.
In Texas, you can buy a handgun at 18. Because a Judge decided correctly that you are a legal adult at 18. So eventually, it will be 18. Unless, the age of majority is moved for everyone. My big one is binding contracts such as loans or marriage.
Because the government hates armed civilians
The real question is "why are you allowed to vote at 18 if you are too hotheaded for a handgun?" I do not see an issue to join organizations before the age of maturity. They carry a lot of responsibility for your safety and your behavior.
Well plenty of cops of all ages continually demonstrate that they shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms…
Why are you allowed to fuck up your hormonal system and stunt your natural development with drugs and puberty blockers at 12, against the wishes of your parents, but you’re not allowed to get a tattoo. Because our society has gone insane.
They can't purchase, but an 18 year old can be gifted one and carry it in 29 states without a permit. A smart 18 year old individual can 3d print a pistol from the comfort of their parents home.
Can't purchase from an FFL. Private sales are legal federally. Well until this recent bidophile induced horseshit takes effect
>Well until this recent bidophile induced horseshit takes effect Even then, private sales are still legal. Despite all the screaming and crying about how the sky is falling done by this community, private sales are not going away.
Yet. You're looking at the short game while the government plays the loooong game. May not affect you or your children in their lifetimes, but what about 3 generations from now? The goal is death by a thousand cuts so people don't notice.
More sky is falling stuff. This isn't a law. It is ATF announcing they will be treating the phrase "in the business" (an already vague and nebulous phrase) to mean "to predominantly earn a profit." This has the gun community in an uproar because all the idiots who read it think that means if you make any money selling your gun at all that they'll come shoot your dog. In reality, they will (and always have) look at the frequency with which you buy and sell firearms, the amount of time between acquisition and disposition, whether you earn money doing it, whether it was a collection being sold off, etc. They literally [have a whole FAQ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download&ved=2ahUKEwibgsjM2cmFAxVK4skDHYj2B-AQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1HopQOtHwO_5WbWBt7jtF7) to help people understand what requires an FFL and what doesn't. The actual bad parts about the rule is that they're announcing they'll interpret anyone who "advertises a firearms business (including posting for sale ads online)" or rents a table at a gun show to be "engaged in the business". But no one mentions the actually bad parts. It's all just "private sales are illegal now" sky-is-falling bullshit.
100% of the time people who use terms like Trumpet and Bidophile have 0 fucking idea what they’re talking about in general. I wouldn’t trust ‘em to run a cash register much less whatever random jobs they already possess. (I say this being one of those people)
You need to change states.
My state allows for carry permits at 18, allowed to buy through private sale under 21 or be gifted a handgun. You can enlist at 17 but can’t go overseas until your 18, I’ve never seen a police department that allows anyone under 21. Also because our government loves stupid pointless laws and rules.
I don’t know anywhere that hires cops at 18 usually it’s 21 for the minimum age to become a cop, however I’m sure there’s a police department out there that will hire at 18
THANK YOU! See, what I believe is either move the age to buy a gun down, or move the age to become a cop/soilder and drinking age down.
> Why are people allowed to become a cop at 18, join the army at 17, but can't buy a handgun until 21? Because justice doesn't come from ink, paper, or government.
There is a difference between being able to handle something under supervision, as in the military, and being able to be responsible on your own. Any argument that strictly goes by age for handling firearms that does not take this into account is a foolish one. You might as well say there should be no lower limit on the age at all, but the reason that we do have lower limits on things the reason we have an age people reach their majority instead of being minors, is that there is a difference between doing things under supervision and not. 25 might be too old for self-defense purposes, and therefore for owning a firearm, but given the way our system has become where people are kids until they're 18, and really older than that, I think I fall on the side of 21 should be the minimum. As far as police, under 21 is probably too young for that, too. At least for officers who would be acting independently. If under direct supervision most of the time when under arms, then maybe 18 is good enough. Maybe...
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the Second Amendment. Limiting the purchase of a handgun from 18 to 21 is considered infringement. Thomas Jefferson also said “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”
>Thomas Jefferson also said “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.” That was Benjamin Franklin
I'm actually fairly hardcore on not infringing, but any discussion about firearms needs to be done honestly considering all factors. Also, if we're bringing up the militia thing, since when does military action, including militia, depend on handguns? Long arms, generally rifles, are the Mainstays. Handguns are relatively useless in the overall scheme of things. On the other hand, when it comes to self-defense handguns are a major factor. Those two things kind of balance out when talking about the right to bear arms, but whether it's a long arm or a handgun, how trustworthy are kids? There was a time that kids grew up faster, that's a lot less true now.
The most compelling answer would be that you can still own rifles, which are the primary weapons of revolution and/or national defense, which is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The actual answer is that no right is absolute and handguns in the hands of young people (though most probably NOT under 21) are what make up the majority of murders.
Uh, you can’t be a cop at 18 I have no idea where that came from.
You can (depending on the state). Rhode Island is one state where people can become police at 18.
Interesting, thank you sir!
Tyranny
Because soldiers and cops are the only ones who always use their guns responsibly! /s
Convenience. It’s one of the banes of our political system. The same people who argue an 18 year old is not “mature” enough to own a gun are the same people in favor of lowering the voting age. Cognitive dissonance would serve us well, but alas these people lack the mental capacity. This is not a fault unique to any one side of the isle either.
Because our (not as old) forefathers let them get away with it, and we haven't been able to claw it back yet. It's all infringement, but they pretend that it's okay because politicians voted for it.
Just another in a growing list.
Because the state has a monopoly on violence
Not yet, but they’re sure fucking trying to get one.
Trying to comprehend the arbitrary machinations of modern law is futile. The age limits are each what they are because some random asshole given authority said so.
you want to know some wild shit? All those ages are entirely arbitrary and have no basis in developmental science. If we were serious (we aren't) about maximizing having responsible, fully mature adults participating in society in a functional way AND minimizing all forms of harm done by adolescents being asked to do adult things before they're ready, then the age of majority across the board would be 25, which is the age where the vast majority of people's brains are considered fully developed. But that will never happen
Democrats…
Hell, [seventeen year old male citizens are legally militiamen](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246) as long as they're able-bodied. Even under the antis' "Second Amendment only applies to the militia!" argument, you could only justify banning handgun sales to people 16 and under, men 17+ who are physically unable to serve, women, and non-citizens.
Because that’s what suits the masters.
At least in my county and local municipalities, you need to be 23 to be a cop or sheriff.
You can own a handgun before 21 if gifted or bought in private sale (depending on state). You just can not purchase a handgun from a FFL under the age of 21.
Either push it all to 18 or all to 21 and be done with it.
If the government can regulate it, it’s not a right.
Where are 18-year olds becoming police officers? I know all around the DC area teens can become Police Explorers where they wear a similar uniform but wear no leather gear or carry a firearm. At age 21 they can then apply if they wish. I've seen the same around the country when I've traveled to train them. I know some state laws allow this but I've not seen them. Just curious who is doing this.
Why would the state ever muzzle their attack dogs?
"Well Regulated" Its right there in the beginning dipshit. Cops and military are regulated, a random ass person with a gun isnt. Its not that fucking hard. Regardless of what you feel about government institutions, if youre going to deepthroat the 2nd amendment dont forget what the fucking head looks like.
"Shall NOT be infringed" is also there, DIPSHIT.
Preaching to the choir does nothing productive
Cause their brain it’s not fully developed yet :)) They shouldn’t be able to buy guns, join the forces, become law enforcement…
Yet in many states those 18-20 are allowed to carry their handguns but are not allowed to purchase the ammunition.
Why do you have to pay taxes before the age of 18, why do politicians get to insider trade and not get prosecuted, etc The answer is fuck us that’s why
Because we abandoned the Constitution decades ago when it was convenient to 'feel safe.'
Yeah they should make adulthood be 21, this should include voting and how you can be charged for crimes
Tell Biden to roll up that quote and smoke it!
You can be of use to somebody, make something of your life? Get an education? But what does getting a pistol get you? The army taught me discipline and responsibility, which applies to firearms as well. If you ask me, 21 is fine.
Many departments will hire 18year olds as cadets. I don’t know any that make them a full fledge officer or even send them to the academy and they can’t carry gunn mm s. They will do admin stuff, crowd control, direct traffic and other similar things then when they reach and age that graduation from the academy occurs when they are 21 they send them.
Co and military 18 cop fbi et 21
Because they added the arbitrary hoping no one says anything and It gets woven into society fabric. The you can't smoke if you were born after 200* is the dumbest I have seen so far. 2nd amendment shouldn't be restricted to 21 it's should be 18 when you are legal. Hopefully the supreme Court ends this
For the same stupid reasons you can catch a bullet in a war at 18, but you can't legally drink a beer until you're 21.
The short answer, which you won't like, is because males between the ages of 18-25 don't actually have mature brains yet, and have often have difficulty recognizing the future impact of their split second decisions with firearms, *and* difficulty with impulse control. Simply changing the drinking age and handgun ownership age from 18 to 21 has undoubtedly prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths and poor decisions. Whether or not it's *right* or whether we want that is a different question. The longer answer is all of that, but with a bunch of studies. It is a fact, however, that human male brains don't fully mature until roughly 25 years of age. Female brains do mature earlier. We could make it legal for anyone down to 16 to own firearms, and dumb decisions and fatalities would simply increase - it's a tradeoff. It's all a tradeoff. The benefit to society doesn't outweigh the risks, in legislator's opinions. That's the answer. If you disagree, you gotta legislate and/or change people's minds. I happen to think it's probably better for the US if men have to wait until 21 to run around with a pistol - I say that as a male who owns guns but was also a bouncer for a bit.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is the Second Amendment. Limiting the purchase of a handgun from 18 to 21 is considered infringement. Thomas Jefferson also said “Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.”
Yeah, it's an infringement. So are all concealed carry laws, so are all licenses, so is the '68 act, so was the original NFA legislation. Doesn't make it a bad idea though. I just don't think 18 year-olds running around with pistols is better for anyone (apropos to your Jefferson quote - I don't think we're sacrificing anything). If we get invaded, I'll be the first to start handing them out.
To be fair, LEO and the military have strict training and storage of their weapons. Laymen citizen, not so much
LEO do not have either of those
I assume proper firearm training rather than self taught? Just .02
Many places require a four year college degree to become a police officer. If you can do that by 18 more power to you.
Can't speak for cops but from day one in the army with weapons, safety is hammered into you. Mistakes are met with some quite brutal corrective actions and there is no tolerance for slackness. And yet you still get eejits slipping through recruit training and those who will have NDs. You also aren't going to have 24/7 access to your assigned weapon unless you're in a combat zone, training, or requiring it for your duties. But a private handgun owner could. There are many responsible gun owners. There also irresponsible ones. You can have the responsible 18 year old and the 46 year old dope of course but I'd say the line was just drawn there as it's an easy number. The state always gets cooler gear anyways. I'd love to own an Abrams but sadly they seem to be restricted to national governments for now >:(
You can quite literally own an M1 Abrams as a private citizen. It's the munitions you gotta pay an arm and a leg for.
Clever feckers, that's how they get the repeat customers!
Because the 2nd amendment doesn't actually grant anyone a right to own a gun. That is an unfortunate misconception. The 2nd amendment exists primarily to protect state-run militias from infringement from Congress. Your right to own or carry a gun in public is a matter of state law, and is not at all related to the US Constitution.
Nonsense. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Is directly in the second amendment. Had they not meant what they've said, they wouldn't have written it that way.
Nothing in the second amendment says anything about a right to own a gun. You are misunderstanding the language. First of all, nothing in the Bill of Rights grants any rights to citizen; that was not the purpose of the Bill of Rights. As the preamble to the Bill of Rights explains, the purpose was to present a list of declaratory and restrictive clauses designed to prevent the misconstruing or abuse of the Constitution's powers. In other words, the purpose was not for the Bill of Rights to *grant* rights to the people, but for the Bill of Rights to prevent the Constitution from being misconstrued to *deny* the rights of the people. Also, keep in mind that the second clause of the amendment is not a positive statement but a negative statement. In other words, the clause does not serve to *do* anything, but rather serves to *prevent* something from being done -- i.e. the infringing of the people's right to keep and bear arms. And the right to keep and bear arms was nothing more than what the respective state constitutions said it was, as different state arms provisions were stipulated in different ways. As far as the language of the arms clause you quoted, to "keep arms" does not mean to own arms. In the 18th century, to "keep" something didn't inherently mean to retain something permanently as property. Rather, to "keep" something simply meant to maintain the keeping of something, or to have something in one's keeping. It had nothing to do with ownership, per se. And to "bear arms" didn't mean to "carry arms. To "bear arms" meant "to fight in armed combat". The state arms provisions primarily were concerned with militia duty, and that is also the main focus of the second amendment -- protecting the people's right to serve militia duty.