My statement had nothing to do with you being a hypocrite because you're an authoritarian.

i imagine most of the reasoning for 21 year old requirement laws is to reduce highschoolers access. since 18 year olds are in highschool (some for an entire year if they were held back or started school early), they can potentially act as distributors for students as young as 14. we dont need some dumb fucking student, or inner city thug legally buying and illegally conceiling a handgun onto school grounds

I really don't understand this country's obsession with guns. We are such a trigger happy nation. We want everyone to have guns. There are shotguns marketed to little kids. I feel like the right views the 2nd amendment as not a right, but a mandatory thing.

...oic , you simply wanted to call me a hypocrite but used the modifier " authoritarian " because you needed some random and disconnected modifier .

so why not allow it to those who dropped out / graduated? or make it 19 instead of 18?

This post was edited by carteblanche on Jun 6 2013 03:38pm

But they can't bring the guns onto school grounds because those are gun free zones.


I think the statement is pretty straight forward, but anyways I'm glad you were able to figure it out.

Administration costs.

Moreover, I don't see any benefit in allowing an 18/19/20 year old to own a a handgun.

What's the benefit for a 21 year old to own a handgun?

I personally say 18, since that is the decided age of adulthood.

No benefit either.

But not as drastic a negative either, because they are already out of highschool/more mature.

Both 18 and 21 are arbitrary age limits, but if we have to pick one, I'd pick 21 for the above reasons.