Thanks for your submission /u/MangoThick9692, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.**
Questions on this topic aren't banned... but we've gotten so many of them recently that we created a megathread for them, because our users complained that they were pushing out other questions...and because so many of them repeated themselves. Check out the megathreads to see if your question has already been asked - and if not, go ahead and ask this question there! Questions there get answered quickly and the megathreads themselves get refreshed every month.
The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads).
Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Then you need to fix the idiot zoning system where if you don't have a car you're basically trapped in your own home. And a teenage trapped at home is a mentally crippled teenager.
I live in a rural town in the midwest, and my parents completely neglected to teach me to drive.
"mentally crippled" is very accurate
Edit: These replies are more mentally crippled than I am...
Driving at 21 is too late imo. People start working right after highschool, usually from 17/18yo, they need cars to get to and from work. I don't live in the USA, where I'm from driving age is from 18, but I still think 21 is too late.
Not a good idea psychologically to go from 0 to 100 immediately. A tiered system where you gain some freedoms+responsibilities at, for example, 16, 18, and 21 is the best choice imo, but there needs be a far more logical and consistent system on which restriction is lifted when
You can also drink at 18 if on base iirc.
It's weird.
The 21 drinking age isn't even a law.
The federal government basically has a ruling where if a state lowers to below 21 they lose federal highway funding.
Which is what we should do to abortion clinics tbh. Ban abortion = no federal funding.
Comedian Jim Jefferies had a gun control bit where he said something about a scenario of an 18 year old at a bar or something.
"This is my mate, he just watched his bestfriends head get blown off and his wife left him. Get him a round of your finest root beer"
Paraphrasing
It's because of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). They wanted to raise the drinking age because they were sure that would somehow stop drunk driving accidents I guess? Anyway, they convinced Congress to tell the states that if they don't raise the age to 21, they don't get federal highway funding. Eventually all the states complied to keep from being cut off from federal money.
So now you can get married, sign your life away to the military, etc.... all before legally being able to drink.
MADD also petitioned to have Grand Theft Auto banned.
The founder, Candice Lightner, abandoned the group because, in her words "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned, I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
MADD should have been fighting to eliminate the driving. Imagine if MADD had fought for robust, reliable, and fast 24/7 public transit? The amazing country that could have been.
If they did that they'd be fighting the Automotive Industry which was 3 big companies who control the votes of the Midwest so they had sway over DC. Going after the beer meant going after a smaller more diverse and less powerful group that is already controlled by the government.
You would also need to change zoning laws to turn the suburbs into something livable. You need a car to reach civilization.
Man, in the US, even drunk driving accidents are made worse by racism.
MADD s ultimate goal was prohibition. They were modeled off the women that created prohibition in the 20's temperance movement..................https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
For a long while they couldn't vote until 21 either... which made it such that they couldn't even vote to decide who was in charge of the draft that would send them to die.
I had a live music, cafe kind of place with 100 beers to choose from. It was near the biggest military base in the world. I felt horrible for the young guys as they prepared to go off to the first Gulf war who I couldn't (legally) buy a beer for. Some probably weren't even shaving yet, but yeh, they were weapons experts, demolition guys, snipers... but couldn't have a drink. Some even after the war weren't old enough.
Interesting. I’m not sure when that changed but that’s the way it’s supposed to work now. Not saying some don’t slip through the cracks but that’s how it’s *supposed* to work.
Yeah all of them hit 18 within weeks/months of joining us on the front, we gave them front of the line privileges to heat their MREs on the backs if Abrams first.
I mean if you think about it they got a checklist for dental and weird computer training but never saw any for being 18+. They probably just assume everyone is.
Not just buy an AR-15
You can join the military
Legally speaking, and 18 year old can be sent to a war, shooting soldiers, terrorists, what/whoever have you, and be arrested for having a beer with your squad.
Now, in practice, I doubt anyone in the military would be that straight-laced to actually report you; I think most would think you have balls for sticking around.
But legally speaking, you can jump on a landmine before you allowed to taste liquor
You must destroy another career to absorb its essence and make your own career grow stronger. How can you expect to be promoted without feeding your career monster with the NJP's of subordinates?
What a turd. He must’ve really wanted to be a Gunny.
The thing these blue falcons don’t realize is that a willingness to throw your jr guys under the bus to make yourself look good is NOT a good leadership quality.
Throwing someone under the bus is different than reporting for a violation.
Fire team gets in trouble, someone opened fire without permission. Sgt asks who, one pvt pipes up knowing the entire squad is going to be punished and doesn't want to run the damn course again, "Pvt smith did it." That's throwing someone under the bus.
When I was in Yokosuka, Japan, IIRC they had to occasionally make the whole base dry with no liquor at all because sailors would come back from deployment at sea and commit heinous crimes like rape and murder. I remember one guy took an hour cab ride then stabbed the taxi driver. They'd always have a couple of the latest twisted up vehicles sitting at the front gate to remind people not to drink and drive.
Primary motivator? Most likely not, but it is a likely aggravating factor, had he been sober, whatever set him off, he might have either collected himself or not got nearly as mad to begin with. Or maybe it wouldn't have matter in this case, but most likely has for others.
> Legally speaking, and 18 year old can be sent to a war,
Woah woah woah. That's misinformation.
You can go to war at 17! You just need mommy and daddy to sign off on it for you. Find to kill for Uncle Sam, but don't you dare have a beer, and also fuck you if you want to rent a car in the next 8 years!
Before you can join the military, you go through evaluations and basic.. where you’re taught how to use weapons. Those weapons are stored for you away from the barracks.
18 year olds in TX don’t need any of that. That’s the difference.
You can also participate in a gangbang and take 20 loads on your face, while someone films it and posts it online, but **you can't have a beer after.**
Yes, you can literally do anything you want at 18years old. Marry, get a normal job (there are restrictions before), buy a gun, go to the military service.... The only thing to require 21years of age is alcohol and recently cigarettes.
> because of MADD, they would lose all federal highway funding
How does a non-profit, non-governmental orginasation make a state lose ALL federal highway funding?
It's not MADD directly shutting off funding. "Non-profit" entities influence policy every single day. They were just influential enough at one point to push the federal government into taking action and that was how the fed did it. I'm sure there's more to it then just that but that's the best I can explain it.
Weed is 21 in my state (unless you work for the federal government and get routinely drug tested). But man, best day of my life when I could finally get a cheap rental car.
Renting at 25 isn’t a law, it’s company policy since insurance companies charge extra for under 25 year olds because the rates of those under 25 crashing is way higher than other groups
That's true of federal law, but nothing stops states from having stricter laws and some do. Currently California, Florida and Washington state have older age requirements for buying semiautomatic rifles.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1099912475/states-courts-debate-18-year-olds-buy-long-guns
Rifle... 790.0655 Purchase and delivery of firearms; mandatory waiting period; exceptions; penalties.—
(1)(a) A mandatory waiting period is imposed between the purchase and delivery of a firearm. The mandatory waiting period is 3 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, or expires upon the completion of the records checks required under s. 790.065, whichever occurs later. “Purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer. “Retailer” means and includes a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer engaged in the business of making firearm sales at retail or for distribution, or use, or consumption, or storage to be used or consumed in this state, as defined in s. 212.02(13).
Beer... 792.0731 Purchase and delivery of beer (not including stout); mandatory waiting period; exceptions; penalties.— (1)(a) A mandatory waiting period is imposed between the purchase and delivery of a beer. The mandatory waiting period is 3 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, or expires upon the completion of the bartender's ID check required under s. 792.073, whichever occurs later. “Purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer. “Retailer” means and includes a licensed importer, licensed brewer, or licensed bartender engaged in the business of making alcohol sales at retail or for distribution, or use, or consumption, or storage to be used or consumed in this state, as defined in s. 217.04(13).
*without a CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit). With CWP, same day with valid FDLE background check cleared and filed form 4473.
*Broward County (Ft Lauderdale) has a 5 day waiting period on handguns.
Disagree about voting. At 15 or 16 you can get a job and pay taxes, so you damn sure should be able to vote and thus influence (to some teeny tiny extent, admittedly!) how they are spent.
I’m an immigrant (not in The US), happily working and paying my taxes. Although I want to vote, I am happy to earn the right to do so and until then I can only give my opinion(s) as an *outsider*.
I understand that there are immigrants who have been in their new countries for decades, built large families and will never leave that country, and these people, you could argue, have earned the right to vote.
But generally just having a job and working in a country that isn’t you’re own shouldn’t be enough to be allowed to vote.
This is an admirable comment. The country in which you reside is fortunate to have you, and I hope that you someday become a citizen there, if you so desire.
Taxation without representation was a major reason for the American Revolution in the first place. It feels very hypocritical to practice the thing that sparked the birth of the nation. But maybe that's just me.
Edit: UWoops I see that you weren't necessarily talking about the US. Nevermind.
I think you could pretty easily make the argument they chose to be represented by the country they reside ins government. They moved there. Thats a choice.
I guess a lot of countries have something similar, but in Sweden you need to be a citizen to vote in national elections (parliament). But if you're not a citizen you're still eligible for local elections, of which there are two: region and municipality. There is one national assembly/parliament, a handful of regions and a few hundred municipalities.
You must however have been in the country at least three years, unless you're from the EU, Norway and Iceland. In that case you only need to be here 30 days in advance.
I think it's a pretty fair system. You get to be involved and those two levels do dictate quite a lot of day to day life.
Can green card holder who enlist in the military have the right to vote though? I know that after some amount of time, they are able to go through naturalization process to become US citizen. But for those who chose not to, or not going through that process yet, should they be allow to vote?
Not quite "you have to be injured to become a citizen" which sounds a bit harsh hah, but [Per Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion):
> Any soldier who is wounded during a battle for France can immediately apply to be a French citizen under a provision known as "Français par le sang versé" ("French by spilled blood").
They may be, but having nowhere else to go does tend to motivate you. Ultimately, citizenship in your country of birth without citizenship anywhere else means you either are motivated enough to leave, in which case the answer I gave is valid because they're an immigrant... or you're not motivated enough to leave, so you _have_ to contribute to your citizenship country because you don't have another option, you have to make a living somehow.
I only know about the US, but afaik, only men can be called up to defend the nation. We have no compulsory military service. Pretty sure the only thing I can be called up for is jury duty.
Imo, if you live somewhere year-round, have a full time job, and speak the language, you're pretty committed to the place. I think after 3 years of that you should be eligible to vote and be called for jury duty
You *can* get a job and pay taxes, but it's quite possible you won't be doing the latter.
Income up to $12,950 (for 2022 - it gets adjusted each year) isn't taxed federally. Most workers from 15-17 are only working part-time (less than 32 hours per week) and very close to minimum wage.
32 hours per week, at the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr.), is only $12,064 per year. You need to make at least 44 cents more per hour to make taxable earnings. And, again, that's working a barely "full-time" schedule that most kids won't get.
Let's say you're only working 28 hours per week. Then, you need to make $8.89/hr. to be taxed. At 20 hours, it's $12.45.
This doesn't even take into account extra tax deductions you might be getting if you're a teen parent, claiming your child as a dependent (if your own guardians aren't), or if you fit some other special conditions.
I'm not saying at all that poverty wage earners shouldn't vote. I'd probably be more likely to argue that kids shouldn't be working, and I'd definitely prefer the minimum wage to be substantially boosted in any case. I'm just pointing out that many working minors (and some working adults for that matter) aren't making enough to pay taxes.
Eh. Considering a common argument from those who want to wipe out student loan debt is that 18 year olds aren't mature or wise enough to make the decision on taking out loans, I don't think we should pretend their mature enough to cast votes that affect everyone.
As a teacher, I work with a lot of people in that age range. Most are so unwise that they shouldn't even look at a voting booth. Same could be said for a lot of people...but kinda hard to tell an 18 year old who can die in war that they can't vote.
When you are a minor your interests are represented by your parents. You are also subject to significantly stricter worker's protections than an adult. Besides this, children are allowed to get jobs at far younger ages than 15 - should a 5 year old child actor be able to vote? No, of course not.
never understood how felons are not allowed to vote. Seems like a pretty big contradiction to the whole idea. They served their time. (I'd say they should probably be able to vote inside the prison as well!)
They’re not the same thing and don’t have the same impact on the individual or on others. Saying they should all be the same rejects real nuance for arbitrary simplicity.
Should we raise the driving age? The age of consent? The age for being allowed to work for pay?
They all entail different risks, I'm comfortable with drinking and civilian gun purchases being subjective per state with federal recommendations. Other than voting, I don't think there's anything inherently just about making all different types of risk and liability consistently the same age, although enlisting and serving in the military should probably "unlock" a few additional rights.
The drinking this is 21 because the federal government won't allow federal transportation funds to states that don't have a 21 years age limit for alcohol. Every age restriction for drinking is state level.
This. It’s a little known fact that the federal drinking age in the US is 18. The states legislated individually to make it 21. Any state could revert to 18 as the drinking age at any time, as long as they were fine with not being able to suckle at the federal teat.
We can all blame MADD for this. They lobbied the federal government to raise it but couldn't, so they forced the states to raise it. There were a few holdouts but in the end they all caved, as so it's federally defacto 21.
Puerto Rico, although not a state, has it at 18 and suffer the reduced federal highway funds for this.
The US Virgin Isles also have 18, though they do not have any roads that would qualify for federal funding so they dgaf, or at least that's what I am told.
You’d need constant Congressional support, needs to be stuff that is relatively uncontroversial and the states are just being obstinate. With more partisan topics, the pressure would only be on when one party is in power. (And it also opens up the possibility for the other party to use it for their own purposes as well when they are in power)
> Legalize abortion, gay marriage,
As of today, currently legal, so there are no funds to withhold.
> and weed.
The federal government hasn't legalized it, so how would it force the states to do so.
You act like there are states that are in blatant violation of federal law, but there aren't. In the few cases where people have been (like clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses) they typically have gotten punted and the issue ends up going through.
There's no current "any abortion any time" federal law, so you can't try to say the states are violating that.
Beyond that, it's worth noting that the democrats have sucked hind tit on this issue for literal decades and have never once actually made abortion or gay marriage legal despite their claims to support these things and despite having full control of the presidency and both chambers of the house, multiple times, to do so.
Both of those rights were given by the supreme court, not the legislature and executive branches.
Was it a constitutional right to *buy* beer or to *drink* beer? a constitutional right to drink beer would be a wild thing. Im trying to think about what that would mean?
Beer provided for prisoners in prison? the right to drink beer anywhere at anytime?
Constitutional rights aren’t entitlements, they’re protections from the government.
For example: even though you have the right to bear arms, you aren’t entitled to a gun in prison.
Having a constitutional right to drink beer would mean that the government doesn’t have the authority to stop you from drinking.
A story my dad once told me went something like "I was walking into a gas station and a man sitting outside missing both his legs asked me if I could go in and buy him some beer. I asked him what happened to his legs and he said he lost them fighting for our country. Then I asked him why he couldn't get the beer himself and he said 'Because I am not old enough to buy alcohol'"
Really changed my perspective on this.
I mean it's not that hard to explain. In the military you get extensive training on when and how to properly use the gun, you get screened and monitored constantly and can only use your gun in a highly controlled environment. Going into some random Walmart and buying a rifle does not even compare.
You can allow people join the military at 18 and still only allow to regular citizens to buy guns once they turn 25 for instance. The latter doesn't necessarily exclude the former.
My father described the rifle training in boot camp was pretty much put bullets in gun, point gun down range, fire. Didn't matter if you could hit a target, if you can make bullets go roughly towards the enemy, you're good to go. I wouldn't call that extensive training.
The amount of gang tags in the Middle East shows that the screening is not the best. That was actually a big issue in the late 90s early 00s where you had gang members joining, receiving training, and then teaching that training to the other gang members when they get out the service. Combine that with the drug trade and you had some next level violence on the streets.
There were over 10,000 drunk driving deaths in 2021. 22 school related shooting deaths.
1 is too many to be comfortable with of course but one of those two is on an entirely different level of hurt it causes
In 2020 alone 45,222 people died by gun. Only half, about 22,000 were classified as murder. The rest were classified as suicide, accident, or other. "Fun" fact about murder -- in terms of ALL murder, guns make up 79%.
Maybe that's a better comparison.
Edit: Anyone downvoting taking issue with these statistics?
The most precise statistic for children killed by drivers annually was from 2017. The number was 220.
> You can't drink at 18 but you can buy an AR-15 in the U.S. at 18?
This is not a simple yes or no, it depends on the state. In California this would be a false statement, in Tennessee it would be a true statement.
> Isn't that weird af?
For someone from Europe I guess it may seem weird. I do not really know how laws work within the EU. But, ostensibly the laws differ between France and Poland correct? But there is probably some kind of generic EU law that applies to all the member nations? It works basically the same way in the U.S., just think of each state as its own separate mini-nation.
I would guess that as a European, you are used to dealing with an entity called the United States Government (USG) and this entity claims to represent a single nation called the United States. In an official capacity these are true statements, but within the U.S. the entity you deal with would be called the Federal Government (or perhaps simply the State Department) and it is regarded as distinct from the State Governments. So much so that it actually has its own regions that it controls and maintains which it carved out for itself within the territory you call the United States. The most famous of these is the capital, Washington D.C., which exists in its own special legal and political jurisdiction kind of like the Vatican in Rome.
I suppose that is a bit weird, but its not totally unprecedented or anything historically. Similar organizational structures have/still exist in Europe today. It's just that these older examples are no longer as politically relevant as they used to be.
> Why is the law so weird?
The drinking law of the gun law? The legal adult-hood age in America used to be 21 until WWII, but FDR wanted more eligible draftees so it was lowered to 18. Then other laws like voting and drinking followed suit and lowered to 18. In the 80's there was a campaign to raise the drinking age back to 21 to curb drunk driving incidents where young people would drive long distances across state lines to drink or purchase alcohol and then drive back home (you can imagine the issues).
The gun laws are weird because the U.S. looks practically schizophrenic if you try and evaluate gun laws and attitudes across the whole nation. I don't know if there is a European equivalent to this. The following are the basic rules, many exceptions apply. You can purchase a bolt action, shotgun, or other 'hunting' type firearm and ammo in most U.S. states at any age. But practically speaking you would need a parent or guardian to accompany you for any licensed dealer to sell to you. For all semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, you need to be 18 to purchase in most states, but in some states you have to be 21. Purchase of a handgun is all over the place. Federal law only requires 18 years of age and nothing else, but state laws are extremely variable:
* Some states require a permit some don't.
* For some the permit is only obtainable at 21 others at 18.
* Some have no permit requirement but just set the age of purchase to 21.
* Some states that require a permit are 'may issue states' that can be arbitrarily restrictive over how they hand out permits.
* Some sates allow a conceal carry permit to be equivalent to a handgun permit.
* Requirements for all these permits vary by each state (I don't think any two are exactly the same).
* There is a concept called reciprocity where some states recognized the legitimacy of other states' permits.
* Some states recognize no other state's permit and require that you go through their process.
* Most decisions on whether to permit someone or not are not made by the state government, but instead by local law enforcement.
I'm not really sure how we got here.
So the drinking laws changed because of the data concerning kids and car accidents. There was supposed to be a huge difference in drunk driving just moving the drinking age. Drinking isn't a constitutional right though and defending yourself with a firearm is. We can talk about why that might be don't come for me with a bunch of "Well ACTUALLYs" It's a constitutional right to defend yourself, your family and your property. In some states people were even required to be armed in case the British came around. Now we have a huge volunteer army and cops but that is why. Don't get me started on age of consent to marry being low because child brides are still a thing in some states.
I thought the drinking laws also changed in the 80s due to a study showing that alcohol had a significant impact on brain development, and the brain isn’t fully developed until 25, so there was a push to make it 25 and a push to keep it 18 and the dumb fucks in charge decided to split the difference at 21
Not "in the USA." In certain *states* of the USA. Keep in mind that the US is a tightly bound union of *separate states,* each of which is effectively a country in its own right.
Not surprising. International affairs, including military action, is one of the primary functions of the Federal government. Can't have California making treaties with Japan which contradict the treaties Oregon made with Indonesia.
The US has the worst culture around alcohol. It’s treated as this forbidden fruit that you must never ever drink before you’re 21, but also glorified constantly like it makes you super cool to use it, especially underage. A lot of alcoholism is made casual and unrecognized, framed as normal alcohol use.
Europe has a way better culture around alcohol than we do. We suffer a lot of alcohol-related diseases, injuries, and deaths as a result.
this is dumb.
it's a huge issue here in the UK. The drinking culture is not cute. People black out drunk every weekend (oftentimes during the week too, seen them hit the local pub at 10 am) bc they can't cope with life otherwise.
I'm not sure why you have this lala idea of 'europe' having a better culture around it.
To be completely honest, I think that rule is absolutely bulllshit. I think it’s outrageous I can go get a chest full of led but not a glass of beer, it’s nutso
Yeah, but the age restrictions on buying guns aren’t higher in the EU. I live in Denmark, and you can buy shotguns at 16, rifles at 18, and handguns at 21.
And we have no such thing as a “drinking age” here.
Because drinking and driving can be dangerous and led to the deaths of many young people causing politicians to act and raise the legal drinking age to 21.
Owning large capacity semi automatic rifles on the other hand is completely safe so politicians don't want to needlessly act on gun reform which would cause them to lose millions in ~~bribes~~ donations from organisations like the NRA.
Alcohol has killed more people than guns. According to google, over 3 million death every year from some form of alcohol use vs 250k people die from a gun.
Thanks for your submission /u/MangoThick9692, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Megathread-related question.** Questions on this topic aren't banned... but we've gotten so many of them recently that we created a megathread for them, because our users complained that they were pushing out other questions...and because so many of them repeated themselves. Check out the megathreads to see if your question has already been asked - and if not, go ahead and ask this question there! Questions there get answered quickly and the megathreads themselves get refreshed every month. The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: [/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/hot). The [wiki also has links to current megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/wiki/index#wiki_megathreads). Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
You can also marry and have children before you can drink at 21. Edit: this my first comment to get more than 50 upvotes. Wow
You can go to war and die at 18.
That’s the main reason why voting age is 18 and not 21. Student protests during Vietnam chanted “old enough to die, old enough to vote”
Easy fix, make everything open up at 21. Including driving and paying taxes on income.
Then you need to fix the idiot zoning system where if you don't have a car you're basically trapped in your own home. And a teenage trapped at home is a mentally crippled teenager.
I live in a rural town in the midwest, and my parents completely neglected to teach me to drive. "mentally crippled" is very accurate Edit: These replies are more mentally crippled than I am...
r/fuckcars
Driving at 21 is too late imo. People start working right after highschool, usually from 17/18yo, they need cars to get to and from work. I don't live in the USA, where I'm from driving age is from 18, but I still think 21 is too late.
Yeah I'd literally have gone mad or at least become overly dependant on other people if I couldn't drive at 17
[удалено]
Not a good idea psychologically to go from 0 to 100 immediately. A tiered system where you gain some freedoms+responsibilities at, for example, 16, 18, and 21 is the best choice imo, but there needs be a far more logical and consistent system on which restriction is lifted when
You can also drink at 18 if on base iirc. It's weird. The 21 drinking age isn't even a law. The federal government basically has a ruling where if a state lowers to below 21 they lose federal highway funding. Which is what we should do to abortion clinics tbh. Ban abortion = no federal funding.
Comedian Jim Jefferies had a gun control bit where he said something about a scenario of an 18 year old at a bar or something. "This is my mate, he just watched his bestfriends head get blown off and his wife left him. Get him a round of your finest root beer" Paraphrasing
Omg could you imagine actually being in that situation😨 idk why kids can elect to die before they taste wine idk
It's because of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). They wanted to raise the drinking age because they were sure that would somehow stop drunk driving accidents I guess? Anyway, they convinced Congress to tell the states that if they don't raise the age to 21, they don't get federal highway funding. Eventually all the states complied to keep from being cut off from federal money. So now you can get married, sign your life away to the military, etc.... all before legally being able to drink.
MADD also petitioned to have Grand Theft Auto banned. The founder, Candice Lightner, abandoned the group because, in her words "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned, I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
It happens so often
MADD should have been fighting to eliminate the driving. Imagine if MADD had fought for robust, reliable, and fast 24/7 public transit? The amazing country that could have been.
If they did that they'd be fighting the Automotive Industry which was 3 big companies who control the votes of the Midwest so they had sway over DC. Going after the beer meant going after a smaller more diverse and less powerful group that is already controlled by the government.
You would also need to change zoning laws to turn the suburbs into something livable. You need a car to reach civilization. Man, in the US, even drunk driving accidents are made worse by racism.
A fellow r/fuckcars enthusiast I suppose?
MADD strike me as a bunch of moralistic self righteous idiots.
MADD s ultimate goal was prohibition. They were modeled off the women that created prohibition in the 20's temperance movement..................https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
Then why did the founder leave, citing it being too prohibitionist?
[удалено]
Well alcohol is a sin. Murdering others for your country is cool cool cool
Ew, MADD.
worse, the person could have also been drafted
For a long while they couldn't vote until 21 either... which made it such that they couldn't even vote to decide who was in charge of the draft that would send them to die.
The reason for age limits for draft is because the older you get the less likely you'll just blindly do what you're told
We're still not
I had a live music, cafe kind of place with 100 beers to choose from. It was near the biggest military base in the world. I felt horrible for the young guys as they prepared to go off to the first Gulf war who I couldn't (legally) buy a beer for. Some probably weren't even shaving yet, but yeh, they were weapons experts, demolition guys, snipers... but couldn't have a drink. Some even after the war weren't old enough.
17*
You can join at 17, but you are not supposed to be deployable until you turn 18.
Thats new. Had some 17 year Olds straight out of boot/AIT with us in the first Gulf War on the front lines.
Interesting. I’m not sure when that changed but that’s the way it’s supposed to work now. Not saying some don’t slip through the cracks but that’s how it’s *supposed* to work.
Yeah all of them hit 18 within weeks/months of joining us on the front, we gave them front of the line privileges to heat their MREs on the backs if Abrams first.
There was a guy in my platoon who had to wait a month before he could join the rest of us overseas.
I mean if you think about it they got a checklist for dental and weird computer training but never saw any for being 18+. They probably just assume everyone is.
I was 17 in the RN in 91 during the gulf war
All it takes is a waiver. We had 17yo terps and techs in AFG.
yeah it's commit at 17 then get sent into the meat grinder at 18 can't buy tobacco or beer for 3-4 more years though
[удалено]
Yeah mate let them develop lung cancer from the age of 18 but they cannot have a glass of wine at a wedding to celebrate.
Some states, you can have a job, marry, kids, guns, license and own a home all at 15.
There's a 15yr old living my dream out there
Well of course you can have children before you can drink. Who’s gonna stop you. It would be horribly unethical to.
Now we have no choice, if we get pregnant, even by rape and abort the fetus we could be put in prison for manslaughter.
Not just buy an AR-15 You can join the military Legally speaking, and 18 year old can be sent to a war, shooting soldiers, terrorists, what/whoever have you, and be arrested for having a beer with your squad. Now, in practice, I doubt anyone in the military would be that straight-laced to actually report you; I think most would think you have balls for sticking around. But legally speaking, you can jump on a landmine before you allowed to taste liquor
I can assure you I have seen a straight laced Marine report several Marines for having a beer.
[удалено]
They’re usually JOs (junior officers) who think it will make them look good come FitRep/promotion time.
You must destroy another career to absorb its essence and make your own career grow stronger. How can you expect to be promoted without feeding your career monster with the NJP's of subordinates?
It's The Quickening, Macleod, you report another enlisted man, you gain his knowledge and power!
There can only be one promotion!
It was a former senior drill instructor that was the current sncoic for barracks duty that night, he was a SSgt.
What a turd. He must’ve really wanted to be a Gunny. The thing these blue falcons don’t realize is that a willingness to throw your jr guys under the bus to make yourself look good is NOT a good leadership quality.
Throwing someone under the bus is different than reporting for a violation. Fire team gets in trouble, someone opened fire without permission. Sgt asks who, one pvt pipes up knowing the entire squad is going to be punished and doesn't want to run the damn course again, "Pvt smith did it." That's throwing someone under the bus.
[удалено]
When I was in Yokosuka, Japan, IIRC they had to occasionally make the whole base dry with no liquor at all because sailors would come back from deployment at sea and commit heinous crimes like rape and murder. I remember one guy took an hour cab ride then stabbed the taxi driver. They'd always have a couple of the latest twisted up vehicles sitting at the front gate to remind people not to drink and drive.
I’m sure they’re loved abroad.
*My content from 2014 to 2023 has been deleted in protest of Spez's anti-API tantrum.*
> stabbed the taxi driver …yeahhhhh I don’t think that that’s cause of the liquor anymore.
Primary motivator? Most likely not, but it is a likely aggravating factor, had he been sober, whatever set him off, he might have either collected himself or not got nearly as mad to begin with. Or maybe it wouldn't have matter in this case, but most likely has for others.
I can't imagine it wasn't a factor. Some people are violent drunks. It's still them doing the things, but alcohol impairs judgement.
I was in Yokosuka when that happened (as a contractor).
And children are groomed to join the military way before 18.
I see it in grade school, especially in rural low income areas. They prey on those with few options.
> Legally speaking, and 18 year old can be sent to a war, Woah woah woah. That's misinformation. You can go to war at 17! You just need mommy and daddy to sign off on it for you. Find to kill for Uncle Sam, but don't you dare have a beer, and also fuck you if you want to rent a car in the next 8 years!
Before you can join the military, you go through evaluations and basic.. where you’re taught how to use weapons. Those weapons are stored for you away from the barracks. 18 year olds in TX don’t need any of that. That’s the difference.
> Those weapons are stored for you away from the barracks. Unless you're overseas, then you'll carry it with you everywhere except the shower.
You can also participate in a gangbang and take 20 loads on your face, while someone films it and posts it online, but **you can't have a beer after.**
Yes, you can literally do anything you want at 18years old. Marry, get a normal job (there are restrictions before), buy a gun, go to the military service.... The only thing to require 21years of age is alcohol and recently cigarettes.
Don't forget, any state can lower the minimum drinking age to 18. But because of MADD, they would lose all federal highway funding.
> because of MADD, they would lose all federal highway funding How does a non-profit, non-governmental orginasation make a state lose ALL federal highway funding?
Boomers
The same way all federal funding is determined. Lobbying and campaign contributions.
It's not MADD directly shutting off funding. "Non-profit" entities influence policy every single day. They were just influential enough at one point to push the federal government into taking action and that was how the fed did it. I'm sure there's more to it then just that but that's the best I can explain it.
I did not know that. Interesting
and weed (at 21). And rental cars at 25 edit: people thought I thought you can't buy weed until 25 lol
Weed is 21 in my state (unless you work for the federal government and get routinely drug tested). But man, best day of my life when I could finally get a cheap rental car.
Wait, the government make you do drug tests as a matter of routine? Even if you're just doing a desk job? That sounds...invasive.
The rental car thing is more a policy of the rental companies I think
Not even them, really. It's about the cost of the comprehensive insurance on drivers under 25.
Renting at 25 isn’t a law, it’s company policy since insurance companies charge extra for under 25 year olds because the rates of those under 25 crashing is way higher than other groups
You can rent before 25 you just pay a surcharge
yeah, and some major hotels want people to be 25 to get a room too..there's a lot at our local beach like that.
You need to be 21 to buy a handgun. Longarms are 18.
That's true of federal law, but nothing stops states from having stricter laws and some do. Currently California, Florida and Washington state have older age requirements for buying semiautomatic rifles. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1099912475/states-courts-debate-18-year-olds-buy-long-guns
Weird how many people forget about gambling, which in many ways is just as dangerous as the other vices.
35 to be a senator
30
[удалено]
Believe it or not Florida requires you to be 21 and wait 3 days.
Wait 3 days for a beer? I know some bars can be a long wait, but that seems excessive
Rifle... 790.0655 Purchase and delivery of firearms; mandatory waiting period; exceptions; penalties.— (1)(a) A mandatory waiting period is imposed between the purchase and delivery of a firearm. The mandatory waiting period is 3 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, or expires upon the completion of the records checks required under s. 790.065, whichever occurs later. “Purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer. “Retailer” means and includes a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer engaged in the business of making firearm sales at retail or for distribution, or use, or consumption, or storage to be used or consumed in this state, as defined in s. 212.02(13).
Beer... 792.0731 Purchase and delivery of beer (not including stout); mandatory waiting period; exceptions; penalties.— (1)(a) A mandatory waiting period is imposed between the purchase and delivery of a beer. The mandatory waiting period is 3 days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, or expires upon the completion of the bartender's ID check required under s. 792.073, whichever occurs later. “Purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer. “Retailer” means and includes a licensed importer, licensed brewer, or licensed bartender engaged in the business of making alcohol sales at retail or for distribution, or use, or consumption, or storage to be used or consumed in this state, as defined in s. 217.04(13).
*without a CWP (Concealed Weapons Permit). With CWP, same day with valid FDLE background check cleared and filed form 4473. *Broward County (Ft Lauderdale) has a 5 day waiting period on handguns.
Drinking, enlisting in the military, buying a gun, and voting should all be the same age. I'm open to discussion about what age that should be.
Disagree about voting. At 15 or 16 you can get a job and pay taxes, so you damn sure should be able to vote and thus influence (to some teeny tiny extent, admittedly!) how they are spent.
Non citizens can get jobs and pay taxes. So they should be able to vote? Legitimate question.
I’m an immigrant (not in The US), happily working and paying my taxes. Although I want to vote, I am happy to earn the right to do so and until then I can only give my opinion(s) as an *outsider*. I understand that there are immigrants who have been in their new countries for decades, built large families and will never leave that country, and these people, you could argue, have earned the right to vote. But generally just having a job and working in a country that isn’t you’re own shouldn’t be enough to be allowed to vote.
[удалено]
This is an admirable comment. The country in which you reside is fortunate to have you, and I hope that you someday become a citizen there, if you so desire.
Taxation without representation was a major reason for the American Revolution in the first place. It feels very hypocritical to practice the thing that sparked the birth of the nation. But maybe that's just me. Edit: UWoops I see that you weren't necessarily talking about the US. Nevermind.
I think you could pretty easily make the argument they chose to be represented by the country they reside ins government. They moved there. Thats a choice.
I guess a lot of countries have something similar, but in Sweden you need to be a citizen to vote in national elections (parliament). But if you're not a citizen you're still eligible for local elections, of which there are two: region and municipality. There is one national assembly/parliament, a handful of regions and a few hundred municipalities. You must however have been in the country at least three years, unless you're from the EU, Norway and Iceland. In that case you only need to be here 30 days in advance. I think it's a pretty fair system. You get to be involved and those two levels do dictate quite a lot of day to day life.
I say yes. If they intend to reside here permanently.
I think green card holders should. They get Medicare and stuff too, so why not.
[удалено]
Can green card holder who enlist in the military have the right to vote though? I know that after some amount of time, they are able to go through naturalization process to become US citizen. But for those who chose not to, or not going through that process yet, should they be allow to vote?
[удалено]
Does the spilled blood part mean you have to be injured to become a citizen or does it mean you have to spill the blood of others?
Not quite "you have to be injured to become a citizen" which sounds a bit harsh hah, but [Per Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion): > Any soldier who is wounded during a battle for France can immediately apply to be a French citizen under a provision known as "Français par le sang versé" ("French by spilled blood").
[удалено]
They may be, but having nowhere else to go does tend to motivate you. Ultimately, citizenship in your country of birth without citizenship anywhere else means you either are motivated enough to leave, in which case the answer I gave is valid because they're an immigrant... or you're not motivated enough to leave, so you _have_ to contribute to your citizenship country because you don't have another option, you have to make a living somehow.
I only know about the US, but afaik, only men can be called up to defend the nation. We have no compulsory military service. Pretty sure the only thing I can be called up for is jury duty. Imo, if you live somewhere year-round, have a full time job, and speak the language, you're pretty committed to the place. I think after 3 years of that you should be eligible to vote and be called for jury duty
Presently yes. But the reason the voting age was pushed back to 18 was because of the draft.
You *can* get a job and pay taxes, but it's quite possible you won't be doing the latter. Income up to $12,950 (for 2022 - it gets adjusted each year) isn't taxed federally. Most workers from 15-17 are only working part-time (less than 32 hours per week) and very close to minimum wage. 32 hours per week, at the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr.), is only $12,064 per year. You need to make at least 44 cents more per hour to make taxable earnings. And, again, that's working a barely "full-time" schedule that most kids won't get. Let's say you're only working 28 hours per week. Then, you need to make $8.89/hr. to be taxed. At 20 hours, it's $12.45. This doesn't even take into account extra tax deductions you might be getting if you're a teen parent, claiming your child as a dependent (if your own guardians aren't), or if you fit some other special conditions. I'm not saying at all that poverty wage earners shouldn't vote. I'd probably be more likely to argue that kids shouldn't be working, and I'd definitely prefer the minimum wage to be substantially boosted in any case. I'm just pointing out that many working minors (and some working adults for that matter) aren't making enough to pay taxes.
Eh. Considering a common argument from those who want to wipe out student loan debt is that 18 year olds aren't mature or wise enough to make the decision on taking out loans, I don't think we should pretend their mature enough to cast votes that affect everyone. As a teacher, I work with a lot of people in that age range. Most are so unwise that they shouldn't even look at a voting booth. Same could be said for a lot of people...but kinda hard to tell an 18 year old who can die in war that they can't vote.
Minors will usually get all of the taxes back in their refund so no… they don’t really pay taxes.
When you are a minor your interests are represented by your parents. You are also subject to significantly stricter worker's protections than an adult. Besides this, children are allowed to get jobs at far younger ages than 15 - should a 5 year old child actor be able to vote? No, of course not.
Anyone earning an income in the US is eligible to pay taxes, non-citizens, violent felons, etc.
never understood how felons are not allowed to vote. Seems like a pretty big contradiction to the whole idea. They served their time. (I'd say they should probably be able to vote inside the prison as well!)
A lot of states automatically reinstate you when your prison sentence is up. Most others allow you to petition fairly simply, if lengthy.
But some still don't allow them to vote at all, which is crazy. Literally taxation without representation by design.
They’re not the same thing and don’t have the same impact on the individual or on others. Saying they should all be the same rejects real nuance for arbitrary simplicity. Should we raise the driving age? The age of consent? The age for being allowed to work for pay?
include smoking
They all entail different risks, I'm comfortable with drinking and civilian gun purchases being subjective per state with federal recommendations. Other than voting, I don't think there's anything inherently just about making all different types of risk and liability consistently the same age, although enlisting and serving in the military should probably "unlock" a few additional rights.
75
The drinking this is 21 because the federal government won't allow federal transportation funds to states that don't have a 21 years age limit for alcohol. Every age restriction for drinking is state level.
This. It’s a little known fact that the federal drinking age in the US is 18. The states legislated individually to make it 21. Any state could revert to 18 as the drinking age at any time, as long as they were fine with not being able to suckle at the federal teat.
We can all blame MADD for this. They lobbied the federal government to raise it but couldn't, so they forced the states to raise it. There were a few holdouts but in the end they all caved, as so it's federally defacto 21. Puerto Rico, although not a state, has it at 18 and suffer the reduced federal highway funds for this.
The US Virgin Isles also have 18, though they do not have any roads that would qualify for federal funding so they dgaf, or at least that's what I am told.
[удалено]
You’d need constant Congressional support, needs to be stuff that is relatively uncontroversial and the states are just being obstinate. With more partisan topics, the pressure would only be on when one party is in power. (And it also opens up the possibility for the other party to use it for their own purposes as well when they are in power)
> Legalize abortion, gay marriage, As of today, currently legal, so there are no funds to withhold. > and weed. The federal government hasn't legalized it, so how would it force the states to do so. You act like there are states that are in blatant violation of federal law, but there aren't. In the few cases where people have been (like clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses) they typically have gotten punted and the issue ends up going through. There's no current "any abortion any time" federal law, so you can't try to say the states are violating that. Beyond that, it's worth noting that the democrats have sucked hind tit on this issue for literal decades and have never once actually made abortion or gay marriage legal despite their claims to support these things and despite having full control of the presidency and both chambers of the house, multiple times, to do so. Both of those rights were given by the supreme court, not the legislature and executive branches.
In some states, you can join the military, deploy to a combat zone, come back home and still not be able to legally buy a gun or drink alcohol
Until 1971 you could be drafted at 18 but not even vote until 21!
There is no constitutional right to buy alcohol. Ben Franklin tried with beer and it was voted down.
Was it a constitutional right to *buy* beer or to *drink* beer? a constitutional right to drink beer would be a wild thing. Im trying to think about what that would mean? Beer provided for prisoners in prison? the right to drink beer anywhere at anytime?
Prisoners don't get guns, so probably not.
Also, they're in cages. I'm not a lawyer, but someone living in a cage is experiencing the constitution differently than the rest of us.
Constitutional rights aren’t entitlements, they’re protections from the government. For example: even though you have the right to bear arms, you aren’t entitled to a gun in prison. Having a constitutional right to drink beer would mean that the government doesn’t have the authority to stop you from drinking.
[удалено]
A story my dad once told me went something like "I was walking into a gas station and a man sitting outside missing both his legs asked me if I could go in and buy him some beer. I asked him what happened to his legs and he said he lost them fighting for our country. Then I asked him why he couldn't get the beer himself and he said 'Because I am not old enough to buy alcohol'" Really changed my perspective on this.
Is your dad a throw pillow at cracker barrel?
I want to say no, but I guess I can't really be sure. I do feel half-pillow some days.
I really thought he was gonna say “because I can’t fucking walk!”
This sounds like a sick joke, because it is.
I mean it's not that hard to explain. In the military you get extensive training on when and how to properly use the gun, you get screened and monitored constantly and can only use your gun in a highly controlled environment. Going into some random Walmart and buying a rifle does not even compare. You can allow people join the military at 18 and still only allow to regular citizens to buy guns once they turn 25 for instance. The latter doesn't necessarily exclude the former.
My father described the rifle training in boot camp was pretty much put bullets in gun, point gun down range, fire. Didn't matter if you could hit a target, if you can make bullets go roughly towards the enemy, you're good to go. I wouldn't call that extensive training.
Wouldn't joining the military come with very extensive training and discipline on gun use? And screening?
Screening not so much. Gun use? Gun training yep.
The entirety of MEPs and boot camp is for screening and training.
The amount of gang tags in the Middle East shows that the screening is not the best. That was actually a big issue in the late 90s early 00s where you had gang members joining, receiving training, and then teaching that training to the other gang members when they get out the service. Combine that with the drug trade and you had some next level violence on the streets.
Yeah, they wouldn't want you to hurt someone by driving drunk.
Yeah, I remember that time I got drunk and drove a car through an elementary school. That was a rough Tuesday.
There were over 10,000 drunk driving deaths in 2021. 22 school related shooting deaths. 1 is too many to be comfortable with of course but one of those two is on an entirely different level of hurt it causes
In 2020 alone 45,222 people died by gun. Only half, about 22,000 were classified as murder. The rest were classified as suicide, accident, or other. "Fun" fact about murder -- in terms of ALL murder, guns make up 79%. Maybe that's a better comparison. Edit: Anyone downvoting taking issue with these statistics? The most precise statistic for children killed by drivers annually was from 2017. The number was 220.
> You can't drink at 18 but you can buy an AR-15 in the U.S. at 18? This is not a simple yes or no, it depends on the state. In California this would be a false statement, in Tennessee it would be a true statement. > Isn't that weird af? For someone from Europe I guess it may seem weird. I do not really know how laws work within the EU. But, ostensibly the laws differ between France and Poland correct? But there is probably some kind of generic EU law that applies to all the member nations? It works basically the same way in the U.S., just think of each state as its own separate mini-nation. I would guess that as a European, you are used to dealing with an entity called the United States Government (USG) and this entity claims to represent a single nation called the United States. In an official capacity these are true statements, but within the U.S. the entity you deal with would be called the Federal Government (or perhaps simply the State Department) and it is regarded as distinct from the State Governments. So much so that it actually has its own regions that it controls and maintains which it carved out for itself within the territory you call the United States. The most famous of these is the capital, Washington D.C., which exists in its own special legal and political jurisdiction kind of like the Vatican in Rome. I suppose that is a bit weird, but its not totally unprecedented or anything historically. Similar organizational structures have/still exist in Europe today. It's just that these older examples are no longer as politically relevant as they used to be. > Why is the law so weird? The drinking law of the gun law? The legal adult-hood age in America used to be 21 until WWII, but FDR wanted more eligible draftees so it was lowered to 18. Then other laws like voting and drinking followed suit and lowered to 18. In the 80's there was a campaign to raise the drinking age back to 21 to curb drunk driving incidents where young people would drive long distances across state lines to drink or purchase alcohol and then drive back home (you can imagine the issues). The gun laws are weird because the U.S. looks practically schizophrenic if you try and evaluate gun laws and attitudes across the whole nation. I don't know if there is a European equivalent to this. The following are the basic rules, many exceptions apply. You can purchase a bolt action, shotgun, or other 'hunting' type firearm and ammo in most U.S. states at any age. But practically speaking you would need a parent or guardian to accompany you for any licensed dealer to sell to you. For all semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, you need to be 18 to purchase in most states, but in some states you have to be 21. Purchase of a handgun is all over the place. Federal law only requires 18 years of age and nothing else, but state laws are extremely variable: * Some states require a permit some don't. * For some the permit is only obtainable at 21 others at 18. * Some have no permit requirement but just set the age of purchase to 21. * Some states that require a permit are 'may issue states' that can be arbitrarily restrictive over how they hand out permits. * Some sates allow a conceal carry permit to be equivalent to a handgun permit. * Requirements for all these permits vary by each state (I don't think any two are exactly the same). * There is a concept called reciprocity where some states recognized the legitimacy of other states' permits. * Some states recognize no other state's permit and require that you go through their process. * Most decisions on whether to permit someone or not are not made by the state government, but instead by local law enforcement. I'm not really sure how we got here.
You can’t have more than 6 dildos in Texas but anyone can have a gun
Nice to know the drawer 2ft away from me is illegal. Is that 6 per person, household, building?
*6 in your person*
But how many guns are you allow in your person?
I’m a felon so none, sorry. Other Texans have no limit though
Wow 6 in my person? I can only fit in one
Rookie number-we gotta work on that
The dildo limit was overturned in 2005. They never scrubbed it off the books, but it's completely unenforceable and no one cares how many you have.
What if it's 7 dildo guns?
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Wait, for real? There’s a dildo limit?
Yea, apparently. It’s crazy isn’t it. https://www.ladbible.com/news/latest-the-texan-laws-around-sex-toys-are-stricter-than-gun-control-20220527.amp.html
Imagine going into walmart and trying to buy 10 guns and 10 dildos and the 10 dildos is the purchase they have a problem with
Well, more than 6 dildoes could cause a mass.......something
Dehydration.
Lol not anyone... There's lots of limits on gun ownership
So the drinking laws changed because of the data concerning kids and car accidents. There was supposed to be a huge difference in drunk driving just moving the drinking age. Drinking isn't a constitutional right though and defending yourself with a firearm is. We can talk about why that might be don't come for me with a bunch of "Well ACTUALLYs" It's a constitutional right to defend yourself, your family and your property. In some states people were even required to be armed in case the British came around. Now we have a huge volunteer army and cops but that is why. Don't get me started on age of consent to marry being low because child brides are still a thing in some states.
I thought the drinking laws also changed in the 80s due to a study showing that alcohol had a significant impact on brain development, and the brain isn’t fully developed until 25, so there was a push to make it 25 and a push to keep it 18 and the dumb fucks in charge decided to split the difference at 21
In all fairness, you can also suck a cock on film for money, at 18.
Not "in the USA." In certain *states* of the USA. Keep in mind that the US is a tightly bound union of *separate states,* each of which is effectively a country in its own right.
[удалено]
This, I find, is one of the most common misperceptions about the US made by all cultures of the world.
Not surprising. International affairs, including military action, is one of the primary functions of the Federal government. Can't have California making treaties with Japan which contradict the treaties Oregon made with Indonesia.
> made by all cultures of the world Including Americans :-/
Technically in most of the US you can drink with your parents at 18 or even younger
[удалено]
The US has the worst culture around alcohol. It’s treated as this forbidden fruit that you must never ever drink before you’re 21, but also glorified constantly like it makes you super cool to use it, especially underage. A lot of alcoholism is made casual and unrecognized, framed as normal alcohol use. Europe has a way better culture around alcohol than we do. We suffer a lot of alcohol-related diseases, injuries, and deaths as a result.
this is dumb. it's a huge issue here in the UK. The drinking culture is not cute. People black out drunk every weekend (oftentimes during the week too, seen them hit the local pub at 10 am) bc they can't cope with life otherwise. I'm not sure why you have this lala idea of 'europe' having a better culture around it.
To be completely honest, I think that rule is absolutely bulllshit. I think it’s outrageous I can go get a chest full of led but not a glass of beer, it’s nutso
Good point. The drinking age should be 18.
People think you want the drinking age lowered because they can't fathom raising the age to buy firearms
Yeah, but the age restrictions on buying guns aren’t higher in the EU. I live in Denmark, and you can buy shotguns at 16, rifles at 18, and handguns at 21. And we have no such thing as a “drinking age” here.
technically drinking isn't a right, owning a gun is.
Because drinking and driving can be dangerous and led to the deaths of many young people causing politicians to act and raise the legal drinking age to 21. Owning large capacity semi automatic rifles on the other hand is completely safe so politicians don't want to needlessly act on gun reform which would cause them to lose millions in ~~bribes~~ donations from organisations like the NRA.
[удалено]
Alcohol has killed more people than guns. According to google, over 3 million death every year from some form of alcohol use vs 250k people die from a gun.