With the latest mass shooting, of an elementary school no less, having a barely 18 year old perpetrator who purchased his AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle legally, there is now a renewed push from "progressives" to raise the age for purchasing at least some types of long guns from 18 to 21. But there is really nothing progressive about doing so at all.
As long as the age of majority is 18, there is really no legitimate reason to selectively infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of 18-20 year olds. Period. It is both over-inclusive (most 18-20 year olds are not criminals, let alone murderers) and under-inclusive (the lion's share of mass shootings are committed by people over 21). If anything, gender is a far bigger predictor of mass shootings than age, with men committing 96-99% of them, yet no one is calling for disarming all men. And recently, a California law setting an age limit of 21 for semiautomatic rifles was struck down as unconstitutional. But now Congress is trying to pass a federal law raising the age for at least some types of long guns to 21 (it is already 21 to purchase handguns under federal law).
It is indeed very important to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, no argument there. But there are far better (albeit imperfect) ways to do this:
- Require a license or permit to purchase handguns and some or all types of rifles going forward, regardless of age
- Require a psych evaluation before purchasing guns going forward, regardless of age
- Universal background checks
- Safe storage laws
- Red flag laws (truly a no-brainer)
- Waiting periods to buy guns
- "Treat bullets like Sudafed"
- Tax bullets (like Chris Rock recommended)
- Ban high-capacity magazines
- Reinstate the assault weapons ban that prevailed from 1994-2004